The Enlightenment's Crusade Against Reason by Linda de Hoyos November 1989 saw one of the greatest moments in the

history of the 20th century--the knocking down of the Berlin Wall dividing Germany. With the Wall, the communist tyranny that had ruled Eastern Europe and Russia for 70 years came crashing down. The overturning of communism was caused by the ``dictatorship of the proletariat's'' own economic implosion, and the persistent striving of the peoples of Eastern Europe and Russia toward hope and human dignity. As in the democracy movement of Tiananmen Square in Beijing earlier that year, Beethoven's ``Ode to Joy'' rang in the hoped-for era of human freedom. Yet, in the brief three years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, it can be safely said that humanity has let this grand opportunity for the advancement of humanity slip through its fingers. In 1990, the American statesman Lyndon LaRouche, writing from his jail cell in the United States where he has been illegally imprisoned, proposed an infrastructural development program for Central Europe--the ``productive triangle''--to upgrade Europe's industrial productivity as the springboard for rescuing Eastern Europe and Russia from the ruinous effects of communist economic imbecility. Instead of the LaRouche productive triangle, the peoples of Eastern Europe and Russia have been treated to three years of rapacious looting and economic rape by the ``victorious'' forces of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Anglo-American oligarchy. Instead of economic freedom, Eastern Europe and Russia have been forced to submit to unemployment, homelessnesss, criminal mafias, and hunger, all under the banner of ``free enterprise.'' In more than one state, the despair of economic and political chaos has caused the bloody breakup of nations, while the West complacently watches. Already the anti-Western backlash is gaining momentum. The reasons for the failure of the 1989 revolution lie not in the greed of Western bankers nor in the physical defenselessness of the East. The root cause is philosophical: the intellectual hegemony of the doctrines of free trade and British liberalism over the continent of Europe and the United States. That domination--otherwise known under the rubric of the Enlightenment--was the cause of another failed revolution--the French Revolution of 1789. In the latter half of the eighteenth century, Europe faced the collapse of the feudal system, along with the downfall of the Amsterdam-based financial system of the time--much as the world faces the collapse of the Versailles System today. The American Revolution of 1776 against Great Britain opened a new vista of opportunities for humanity with the creation of a constitutional republic, a republic dedicated to safeguarding for each individual the rights of ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' But the attempt to bring this revolution back into Europe was shipwrecked in France and the events of the French Revolution. The seizure of the Bastille by the rabble of Paris in 1789 sparked a paroxysm of civil violence and war that finally led through Napoleon to the 1815 Congress of Vienna and the beginnings of the imperial Versailles System and the cultural dark age we know today. Writing from Germany during the early period of the Revolution, Friedrich Schiller (1759-1804), the great poet of freedom, decried the Jacobin fury seizing France: ``The attempt of the French people to gain possession of the rights of man and to win political freedom has only shown its incapacity and unworthiness, and has swept back along with it a considerable part of Europe into barbarism and serfdom.... In the lower classes we see only lawless instincts which hasten to their bestial satisfaction now that the restraints of society are removed. So it was not moral control, but external coercion, which hitherto held them back. So they were not free men, as they declared, oppressed by the state! When civilization degenerates, it falls lower than barbarism can ever reach, for the latter can only become a beast, while the former lapses into the devil.''

What Is the Enlightenment? For this tragic turn of events, we have to thank the so-called French Enlightenment which swept France through the span of the eighteeth century. What is ``the Enlightenment?'' The German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), who, in contrast to Schiller, considered the French Revolution the crowning event of his life, provides an answer: ``Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed tutelage. Tutelage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This tutelage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! Have the courage to use one's own understanding! is therefore the motto of the Enlightenment.... If it is only given freedom, enlightenment is inevitable.... We [do] live in an age of Enlightenment. We have some obvious indications that the field of working toward the goal of religious truth is now being opened.'' In point of fact, as we shall demonstrate, the goal of the Enlightenment was not ``religious truth,'' but the severance of man from God.

Its motto was reason, but in the name of challenging what it called the superstition of religion, the Enlightenment acted to destroy science. In the name of freedom, it established the preconditions for terror and tyranny. For these achievements, we have principally to thank two people, Francois Arouet--a.k.a. Voltaire (1694-1778) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). Under the tutelage of the British Royal Society, Voltaire took on the first challenge, and Rousseau can definitely be credited for achievement of the second. The world would have been a far different place if the ideas of the universal mind of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) had won hegemony in eighteenth-century France--as opposed to the oligarchical nihilism of the Enlightenment. The question posed then is the same facing humanity today: What will replace the crumbling ancien regime? Just as the oligarchy fears the ideas of LaRouche today to the point that he has been given a virtual life sentence in jail, so the oligarchy recognized in Leibniz's ideas a threat that could bring about a new renaissance and take humanity forward in building the City of God on earth. It is no exaggeration to say that the major impulse of the Enlightenment was the mission to expunge Leibniz's work and influence from Europe. The success of these efforts, led by the Aristotelians of the British Royal Society, brought about the result of which Leibniz had feared. In his 1704 answer to John Locke, the New Essays on Human Understanding, Leibniz warned of the consequences of ``beliefs that go against the providence of a perfectly good, wise, and just God, or against that immortality of souls which lays them open to the operations of justice.... I even find that somewhat similar opinions, by stealing gradually into the minds of men of high station who rule the rest and on whom affairs depend, and by slithering into fashionable books, are inclining everything toward the universal revolution with which Europe is threatened, and are completing the destruction of what still remains in the world of the generous Greeks and Romans who placed love of country and of the public good, and the welfare of future generations before fortune and even before life.''

British Royal Society in Action Even before Voltaire launched his 50-year-long tirade against Leibniz, the British Royal Society mafia had sprung into action to counter and, where possible, suppress Leibniz's work. Specifically, the British Aristotelians were concerned that Leibniz had emerged in France at the end of the seventeenth century as the major challenger to and victor over the philosophy of Rene Descartes. The danger was that Leibniz would replace Descartes as the hegemonic world view in France. The British Royal Society was determined that the discarded Rosicrucian would be supplanted instead by what Leibniz called the ``occult physics'' of Isaac Newton. The cases of Newton's plagiarism of Leibniz's calculus and the controversy between Leibniz and Newton's defender Samuel Clark are well known. From Holland, Leibniz was also challenged by Pierre Bayle, editor of the foremost philosophical journal of the time, the Nouvelles de la Republique des Lettres. It was Bayle's attempt to revive Manichaeanism which prompted Leibniz to write The Theodicy, which was published in 1710. With the exception of The Monadology, published in 1720, no major works of Leibniz were published until 1765, when New Essays was finally issued. Even today, thousands of pages of Leibniz's writings lie moldering in archives, yet to see the light of day. As Leibniz explained in The Theodicy, he felt compelled to answer the ``Dictionary of M. Bayle, wherein religion and reason appear as adversaries, and where M. Bayle wishes to silence reason after having made it speak too loud: which he calls the triumph of faith.'' A French Huguenot who settled in Holland, then the publishing clearinghouse for philosophy and science, Pierre Bayle was a top agent of the British Royal Society, operating under the explicit orders of Henri Justel, another French Huguenot and Royal Society operative who had first brought Bayle to England. At the top, this nexus was directed by the faction of English Deists, led by the notorious Earl of Shaftesbury and the aristocrat Anthony Collins who maintained that ``these larger powers and larger weaknesses [of man] which are of the same kind with the powers and weaknesses of sheep, cannot contain liberty in them.'' Bayle had been established in Rotterdam by the British Royal Society and knew of the whereabouts of every French Huguenot, who, like himself, had left France after the 1685 Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. In this setting, Bayle recruited directly for the British Royal Society. One such recruit was Pierre Desmaizeaux, who later became Bayle's biographer and whom Bayle forwarded to the British Royal Society, where he became a deployable of such Royal Society kingpins as Joseph Addison and Richard Steele. This grouping ran the literary mafia of Europe. All the iconoclasts of the Enlightenment, Rousseau, Montesquieu, d'Holbach, Boulainvilliers, were published out of Geneva, Amsterdam, and London--but not Paris--centers controlled by the British Royal Society literary mafia. Bayle appears to have been the intellectual godfather of such heralds of British liberalism as John Locke, as Locke wrote to one British Royal Society agent in Holland, ``Please find out what Bayle thinks of my book.'' British Royal Society agent Bayle was the direct intellectual godfather of Francois Arouet--Voltaire. From his first trip to Holland in 1713 and then to Britain in 1726, the young Voltaire, educated in debauchery by the secret Temple of Taste and

already rumored to have slept with an English count, was picked up by the circles that had deployed Bayle to raise the cudgels of the buggery faction of science against Leibniz. To accomplish this, Voltaire simply plagiarized Bayle's writings--especially Bayle's attacks on Christianity--over the entire span of his overly long career. Voltaire had most of Bayle's books in his own library and many volumes of Bayle's Nouvelles Lettres. The epicurean Voltaire feasted on Bayle's diatribes against the Holy Trinity, against Saint Augustine, and against God. Both Voltaire and Bayle agreed: ``God is the author of all sin.''

Necessity of God for Science Leibniz's Confession of Nature perhaps offers the quickest route to get to the heart of the philosophical conflict between Leibniz and the Enlightenment. In the first part of this Confession of Nature, Leibniz offers his proof that ``corporeal phenomena cannot be explained without an incorporeal principle, that is God.'' In the outset of this short piece, Leibniz states that, according to the tradition of Galileo, Francis Bacon, Gassendi, Descartes, Hobbes, and Digby, ``in explaining corporeal phenomena, we must not unnecessarily resort to God, or to any other incorporeal thing, form, or quality, but that, insofar as can be done, everything should be derived from the nature of the body and its primary qualities--magnitude, figure, and motion. But what if I should demonstrate that the origin of these very primary qualities themselves cannot be found in the essence of the body?'' Everything is fine as long as science limits itself to a simple measurement of a body in space--an activity with which Voltaire was very preoccupied in his middle years. The problem arises when the scientist asks why the body ``fills this space and not another; for example, why it should be three feet long rather than two, or square rather than round. This cannot be explained by the nature of the bodies themselves, since the matter is indeterminate as to any definite figure, whether square or round.'' For the scientist who refuses to resort to an incorporeal cause, there can be only two answers. Either the body has been this way since eternity, or it has been made square by the impact of another body. ``Eternity'' is no answer, since the body could have been round for eternity also. If the answer is ``the impact of another body,'' there remains the question of why it should have had any determinate figure before such motion acted upon it. This question can then be asked again and again, backwards to infinity. ``Therefore, it appears that the reason for a certain figure and magnitude in bodies can never be found in the nature of these bodies themselves.'' Leibniz demonstrates the same in regard to the firmness and cohesion of bodies, concluding that: ``since we have demonstrated that bodies cannot have a determinate figure, quantity, or motion, without an incorporeal being, it readily becomes apparent that this incorporeal being is one for all, because of the harmony of things among themselves, especially since bodies are moved not individually by this incorporeal being but by each other. But no reason can be given why this incorporeal being chooses one magnitude, figure, and motion rather than another, unless he is intelligent and wise with regard to the beauty of things and powerful with regard to their obedience to their command. Therefore such an incorporeal being be a mind ruling the whole world, that is, God.'' Since, as Leibniz also said, ``Mind is not a part, but an image of divinity, a representation of the universe,'' the resort to the incorporeal principle in corporeal phenomena is not a statement that therefore the laws of the universe are unknowable. To the contrary, science is the acceptance of God's invitation to man to know His mind, to discover the laws of the universe, to participate in the ongoing creation and perfectability of the universe through ever-more perfect knowledge of God's mind. Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason, principle of pre-established harmony, and principle of least action are pathways for such exploration.

Voltaire's Hatred of God It was against this central idea that Voltaire railed. In the first instance, Voltaire insisted that any incorporeal substance must be banished from the physical world. Metaphysics is ruled out of order. Writing in 1741, Voltaire asserts that the British Royal Society would ``not hesitate to pronounce that in equal times two and two is four: because in truth, when everything is weighed, that is what it amounts to. Frankly Leibniz is come but to embroil the sciences. His sufficient reason, his continuity, his fullness, his monads, etc., are the germs of a confusion.'' Voltaire incorporated his objections to Leibniz's metaphysics in his 1741 Elements of Newton's Philosophy. Like the Jansenist Antoine Arnauld who corresponded with Leibniz, Voltaire insisted that scientific inquiry must proceed to examine only the thing-in-itself rather than its process of coming-into-being, and also insisted upon Newton's idea of absolute time and space. However, even in this work, his most significant as the British Royal Society's popularizer of Newton in France, Voltaire makes no attempt to actually refute Leibniz but insinuates only that Leibniz must be insane, a kook, an extremist or charlatan. ``Even if it were possible that God had done everything Leibniz imagines, would it be necessary to believe in Him based on a simple possibility? What has he proved by all his new efforts? That he has a very great genius.''

Voltaire's Elements of Newton's Philosophy is, happily, little read today. It is noteworthy that the great popularizer of Newton had not one book of Newton's in his vast personal library. Although Voltaire claimed that Newton's other great defender and opponent of Leibniz, Samuel Clarke, was ``my teacher,'' his closer mentor was Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis, the teacher of Madame du Chatelet, Voltaire's aristocratic mistress. In 1732, Voltaire wrote Maupertuis, who was a leader of the French Academy of Sciences, ``You have cleared away my doubts with the most luminous clarity; behold me a Newtonian of your kind.'' Newton was indeed at the center of the ideology of freemasonry, which had been brought over to France from England by British Royal Society member Desaguliers, and in which such Enlightenment luminaries as Montesquieu and Voltaire were prominent members. Desaguliers had created an elaborate structure of freemasonic ritual and formula with Newton as the key to understanding. Freemasonry was the overtly political arm of the British Royal Society's operation to destroy Leibniz and republicanism on the continent. It is this freemasonic ideology which then emerged at the center of the Jacobin reign of terror in France in 1793. The Committee of Public Safety, led by Maximilian Robespierre, sought to replace Christianity with its own state ``Cult of the Supreme Being,'' and was drawing up designs to construct a monument to Newton in Paris. The Committee of Public Safety issued an edict which declared that ``I. The French people recognizes the existence of the Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul; and II. It recognizes the worship worthy of the Supreme Being consists in the practice of the duties of man.'' What are these duties? ``To detest bad faith and despotism, and to punish tyrants and traitors.'' Even Robespierre, striking Newton's proclamation that ``I have no need of hypothesis,'' proclaimed that statecraft must follow the Voltaire-Newtonian prescription. In his most famous speech delivered to the French Assembly, the master of the guillotine declared: ``Ah! what does it matter to you, legislators, by what varied hypotheses, certain philosophers explain the phenomenon of nature? You may hand over all these subjects to their everlasting discussions: it is neither as metaphysicians nor as theologians that you have to consider them. In the eyes of the legislator, truth is all that is useful and of practical good to the world.'' Voltaire's library points to his own role as a conspirator of the British-instigated nobles' rebellion against the king, which provided the spark for the Revolution of 1789. Voltaire's library is full of books like Essays on the Nobility of France, History of the Ancient Governments of France, History of the French Parlements, and histories of Rome. The preoccupation with pagan Rome was central to the Jacobin Terror itself, as Robespierre's younger comrade St. Juste proclaimed: ``The world has been empty since the Romans, and is filled only with their memory, which is now our prophecy of freedom.''

Voltaire the Gnostic Voltaire's most famous work, his 1759 Candide, was dedicated to heaping abuse on Leibniz, who is portrayed in this banal novella as the pathetic Dr. Pangloss. To each of the horrid misfortunes that befall the naive hero Candide, Dr. Pangloss merely reiterates that Candide must not forget that this is the best of all possible worlds--in a dishonest attempt to turn Leibniz's concept of the process of perfectability in the universe, into a slogan for fatalism. But Voltaire's own anti-Christian beliefs are exposed in his 1756 short piece, Plato's Dream, where he embraces the ancient gnostic doctrine of the universe. In this exercise, Voltaire not only peddles the complete separation of the material and spiritual world, but upholds the gnostic doctrine that all material reality is inherently evil. The corollary to this doctrine, of course, is that man is thereby excused from all compunctions to be moral, since he is a helpless victim trapped in an evil universe not of his own making. This doctrine was likely the source of Voltaire's world view since as early as 1711, when he was introduced into the Temple of Taste, a secret society of debauchees who then forwarded him to England for further indoctrination in buggery. Voltaire asserts in Plato's Dream that the ``Eternal Geometrician'' gave the evil divinity Demogorgon--the ruler of the netherworld in ancient mythology--``a bit of mud that is called Earth'' to arrange as he saw fit. After fashioning what Demogorgon considered a ``masterpiece,'' the evil god was surprised to find himself coming under attack by the other genies attendant to the Great Demiurge, Demiurge also being a specific gnostic subordinate deity who creates the material universe. With his characteristic adolescent wit, Voltaire has the genies say: ``Your onions and artichokes are very good things; but I don't see what your idea was in covering the earth with so many venemous plants, unless you had the intention of poisoning the inhabitants.... [you only have] four or five kinds of men; it is true that you have given this last animal what you call reason; but in all conscience, that reason of his is too ridiculous and comes too close to madness. Moreover, it appears to me that you set no great store by that two-footed animal, since you have given him so many enemies and so little defense, so many maladies and so few remedies, so many passions and so little wisdom. Apparently you do not want many of those animals to remain on earth...." Demogorgon blushed: he fully sensed that there was moral evil and physical evil in the work he had done, but,'' says Voltaire in a swipe at Leibniz's Theodicy, ``he maintained that there was more good than evil.''

At this point in the dream, the genies rage in a battle of polemics against each other over who had made the best planet, until the ``eternal Demiurge'' silences them, saying ``You have made some things good and some bad, because you have much intelligence and because you are imperfect; your works will last only a few hundreds of millions of years, after which, having learned more, you will do it better; it belongs to me alone to make things perfect and immortal.'' The moral of the tale, being that both the material universe and God are evil--and not good, as Leibniz states. Is it therefore surprising to find that, having consigned the entire material universe to evil, that Voltaire, the great purveyor of Enlightenment, should also believe in the occult? In 1715-1716, Leibniz had corresponded with Samuel Clark, the defender of Newton whom Voltaire claimed as his own teacher. Leibniz had directly attacked what he called the ``occult quality'' of Newton's concept of ``attraction at a distance.'' ``What does he mean when he [Newton] will have the sun to attract the globe of the earth through an empty space? Is it God himself that performs it? But this would be a miracle, if ever there was any,'' Leibniz argues, stating that God's miracles are for the purposes of grace only. ``And if it is not miraculous, it is false,'' he states. ``It is a chimerical thing, a scholastic occult quality.'' In this way, Leibniz indicts the buggery faction of science, to which Voltaire pleads ``Guilty, as charged.'' Writing in 1774, Voltaire declares that ``we have mocked occult qualities too long. We ought to laugh at those who do not believe in them. Let us repeat a hundred times that every principle, every original source of any work whatever of the Great Demiurge is occult and hidden from mortals.'' Is this the ``religious truth'' that Immanuel Kant's Great Enlightenment is striving toward? To be sure, the Enlightenment crusade against organized religion did constitute the plotting of the kind of ``revolution'' that Leibniz feared, as Voltaire's crony, the Baron Paul d'Holbach proclaimed: ``Religion, by inspiring fear of an invisible tyrant, has made us subservient to kings.'' Voltaire blamed the success of Christianity over the millennia on its incorporation of Platonic ideas. The association of Christianity with Platonism was so explicit in eighteeth-century France, that even the future Jacobin Maximilian Robespierre wrote a treatise called Three Impostors, in which he excoriated Moses, Mohammad, and Jesus Christ, designating Christ as Plato in disguise. Voltaire fulminated on his own hatred of Christ in the play Mahomet, which, although treating the founder of Islam, was received by its audience as an attack on Christ. The following quote gives an idea of Voltaire's incendiary tone against religion, echoed later in the ravings of the French Terror's Marat, Danton, and Sainte Juste. Mahomet is explaining to a friend how he will organize his following: ``Prejudice, my friend, is the common man's king.... I intend to take advantage of the people's credulity ... upon the debris of the world let us raise Arabia. We need a new cult, we need new power, we need a new god for the blind world.... beneath one king, beneath one god, I come to unite it, for, to make it illustrious, we first must enslave it.... By the right that a vast intelligence, one firm in its purpose, has over the gross minds of the vulgar mob.... We must please the mob.... We must deliberate what best will serve my interests, my hatred, my love, my unworthy love, which despite my efforts, drags me along in chains; and religion to which all must submit, and necessity, the mother of all evil.... He who dares think was not born to believe me!''

Rousseau's Hatred of Man Given, as Leibniz said, that ``Mind is but an image of divinity, a representation of the universe,'' it is but a short distance from Voltaire's hatred of God, to Jean-Jacques Rousseau's hatred of man. The issue of which should be the true object of hatred even became an open conflict between Voltaire and Rousseau in 1755, when an earthquake leveled the city of Lisbon. Voltaire, in his famous poem on the theme, blamed that ``author of all sin, God,'' while Rousseau pinned the blame on man. ``Note that nature did not assemble 20,000 houses of six or seven stories, and that if the inhabitants of that great city had been more evenly dispersed and more lightly lodged, the damages would have been less, perhaps nothing.'' The Swiss-born Rousseau served as the Swiss ambassador's secretary in Venice before hitting Paris, as the deployable agent of the Swiss faction in France, led by Finance Minister Jacques Necker, whose daughter became the famous patron of degenerate romanticism, Madame de Stael. Rousseau was one of the world's first greenies. His book Emile, or On Education, is a declaration of war against civilization. Rousseau even goes so far as to castigate man for disrupting the food chain!: ``God makes all things good; man meddles with them and they become evil. He forces the soil to yield the products

of another, one tree to bear another's fruit. He mutilates his dog, his horse, and his slave. He destroys and defaces all things; he loves all that is deformed and monstrous; he will have nothing as nature made it, not even man himself, who must learn his paces like a saddle horse and be shaped to his master's taste like the trees in his garden.'' Rousseau would have us believe, according to his Confessions, that as a young man, he had sat down under a tree as if in a trance and had woken up to find tears streaming down his face and the realization that all civilization is the enemy of the ``natural man.'' The experience occurred when Rousseau was on his way to visit Diderot in prison, and Rousseau describes his realization: ``Oh, if I could have written one-fourth of what I had seen and felt under that tree with what clarity I should have revealed all the contradictions of the social system! With what force I would have exposed all the abuses of our institutions! With what ease I should have shown that man is naturally good, and that it is through these institutions alone that men become bad. All I have been able to retain of those swarms of great truths that enlightened me under that tree has been scattered feebly in Discourse on Inequality and Education. Presaging Dostoevsky's idea that only the idiot is close to God, Rousseau admits in his Discourses on Inequality that the ``faculty of self-improvement''--that divine spark of human creativity and reason--``is that faculty which absolutely distinguishes man from the beasts,'' but adds that ``this is precisely the faculty that is the source of all man's misfortunes.'' Rousseau's goal, however, is not the nurturing of the ``natural man.'' Given his oligarchical masters in Paris and Venice, his aim is to use the idea of ``natural man'' to justify the harshest dictatorship. As Rousseau explains in Emile: ``The natural man lives for himself; he is the unit, the whole, dependent only on himself and on his like.'' The state is required to suppress the ``natural man''--his instincts and desires--just as Hobbes might suggest, to ensure the public order. ``The citizen is but the numerator of a fraction, whose value depends on its denominator; his value depends upon the whole, that is, on the community. Good social institutions are those best fitted to make a man unnatural, to exchange his independence for dependence, to merge the unit in the group, so that he no longer regards himself as one, but as a part of the whole, and is only conscious of the common life.'' This is the Social Contract, the perfect blueprint for the Spartan state, or any other totalitarian state, be it fascist or communist. ``The general will alone,'' Rousseau writes in his The Social Contract, ``can direct the forces of the state in accordance with that end which the state has been established to achieve''--a common good which Rousseau however leaves without content. Nor does Rousseau provide any formula for determining who shall determine what the ``general will'' should be. In an apologia for the Terror to come, Rousseau continues: ``There is often a great difference between the will of all and the general will; the general will studies only the common interest and is indeed no more than the sum of individual desires. But if we take away from these same wills, the pluses and minuses which cancel each other out, the sum of the difference is the general will.'' Instead of the purpose of government being the fostering of the conditions for the fullest realization of the creative potential of each individual citizen, in Rousseau's utopia, the individual's identity is annihilated in service to the state. Therefore, as Schiller must have been aware, Rousseau's choice of the best state is Sparta. In The Social Contract, he holds up as an example of finest citizenship the Spartan mother who had five sons in the army. When she asked a slave to tell her news of the recent battle, he answered trembling, ``Your five sons are slain,'' to which she replied: ``Vile slave, was that what I asked thee?'' Upon hearing that Sparta had won the victory, she ran to the temple to offer thanks. ``That was a citizen,'' says Rousseau. Further, Rousseau posits that the totalitarian state must become the only source of identity for the individual. He writes: ``Whoever ventures on the enterprise of setting up a people must be ready, shall we say, to change human nature, to transform each individual, who by himself is entirely complete and solitary into a part of a much greater whole, from which that same individual will then receive, in a sense, his life and being. The founder of nations must weaken the structure of man in order to fortify it, to replace the physical and independent existence we have all received from nature with a moral and communal existence. In a word, each man must be stripped of his own powers, and given powers which are external to him, and which he cannot use without the help of others. The nearer men's natural powers are to extinction or annihilation, and the stronger and more lasting their acquired powers, the stronger and more perfect the social institution. So much so, that if each citizen can do nothing whatever except through cooperation with others, and if the acquired power of the whole is equal to, or greater than, the sume of the natural powers of each of the individuals, then we can say that law-making has reached the highest point of perfection.''

Rousseau the Maoist Nothing could be further from the spirit of the American Constitution and the concept of man's participation in the continuing

process of perfection of the universe than this attempt to justify the totalitarian state, which is based on an abstract notion of the ``common good.'' Yet, Rousseau is taught in high schools throughout the country as the intellectual progenitor of the American Republic. On the contrary, his ideas are the intellectual godfather of both fascism and communism. His ``social contract'' is the true model for the ``dictatorship of the proletariat,'' which strips each individual of his inalienable rights in the name of the ``class war'' and egalitarianism in distribution. Rousseau writes: ``The right of any individual over his estate is always subordinate to the right of the community over everything; for without this there would be neither strength in the social bond nor effective force in the exercise of sovereignty.'' Likewise, Rousseau's economic ideas have been most closely carried out in the Maoist state during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, which in turn are the model for the genocidal Pol Pot of Cambodia and the Sendero Luminoso of Peru. In the Peruvian and Cambodian cases, the intellectual credibility accredited to the evil Rousseau is the source of the shaping input of the Sorbonne University into the Pol Pot-Sendero Luminoso terrorists. Rousseau's advice for a newly independent island of Corsica, for example, could have been printed in Mao's Little Red Book: ``The laws should give every inducement to the people to remain on the land and not come into the cities. Agriculture makes for individual character and national health; trade, commerce, and finance opened the doors to all sorts of chicanery and should be discouraged by the state. All travel should be on foot or beast. Early marriage and large families are to be rewarded; men unmarried by the age of forty should lose their citizenship. Private property should be reduced, state property increased. I should wish to see the state the sole owner, the indvidual taking a share of the common property only in proportion to his services. If necessary the population should be conscripted to till the lands of the state. The government should control all education and all public morality.'' If Voltaire's tirades against God and king were the intellectual currency of the nobles who launched the early days of the French Revolution, Rousseau's ideas were the fuel of the Jacobin terror. How else could Danton's Committee of Public Safety sentence to death the chemist and friend of America Antoine Lavoisier with the words: ``The Revolution has no need of science!'' Rousseau's ``natural man'' was of course a hoax, which is not surprising. Rousseau was not too natural himself, having thrown up to a dozen of his infant children into orphanages as soon as they were born. The ``natural man'' to which he sings a paean is not the French peasant, but the sans coulottes leader Marat, who had no problem finding refuge in London whenever he came under scrutiny in Paris and who led the Jacobin slaughters in Paris. ``I am the anger, the just anger of the people,'' Marat proclaimed, ``and that is why they listen to me and believe in me. These cries of alarm and of fury that you take for empty words are the most naive and most sincere expressions of the passions that devour my soul.'' In the standard Jacobin justification for barbaric criminality from Franz Fanon to Sendero Luminoso and Pol Pot, Marat declares that ``When a man lacks everything he has the right to take what others have in superfluity. Rather than starve, he is justified in cutting another's throat, and devouring the palpitating flesh.'' This enrag was Rousseau's true ``natural man.'' As the Committee of Public Safety stated in its ``Report on Principles of Political Morality'' in 1794, ``The principle of the republic is to influence the people through use of reason, and to influence our enemies by use of terror. The government of revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny.'' In this way, by the end of the eighteenth century, the French Revolution proved the reality of the ideas of Voltaire and Rousseau's Enlightenment. With the fall of Robespierre's Committee of Public Safety, the same terrorists who had worked for Marat led the White Counter-Terror, as France lurched toward the dictatorship of Napoleon. The Enlightenment had largely succeeded in clearing the scene of the legacy of Platonic statecraft and republicanism that had been carried forward by Leibniz. The Enlightenment's assault on Christianity in the name of ``reason'' had made hatred the emotional fuel of the ``revolution.'' The concept of imago viva Dei, man made in the living image of God, had been swept aside and replaced with Rousseau's ``natural man.'' By the end of the century, Leibniz's ideas had been so expunged from intellectual consciousness that Immanuel Kant could write the Critique of Pure Reason claiming to revive metaphysics as the Queen of Sciences--this time on a purely Aristotelian basis. From the standpoint of Kant's Aristotelian categories, man's creative process of mind and God are both equally unknowable. Truth is reduced to pragmatism: ``all that is useful and of practical good to the world.'' The creation of republics in Eastern Europe and Russia today, after the revolution against the communist descendants of Rousseau will require the defeat of the Enlightenment in the West and a new philosophical renaissance centered on the concept of imago viva dei. Captions ``The root cause of the failure of the 1989 revolution is philosophical: the intellectual hegemony of the doctrines of free trade

and British liberalism over Europe and the United States.'' ``That domination--otherwise known under the rubric of the Enlightenment--was the cause of another failed revolution--the French Revolution of 1789.'' EIRNS/Chris Lewis German patriots throng to the Reichstag in Berlin, capital of a reunited Germany, on October 3, 1989. Prints and Photographs Division/Library of Congress French mobs storm the Bastille on July 14, 1789. ``For the achievements of the Enlightenment, we have principally to thank two people, Francois Arouet--a.k.a. Voltaire (1694-1778) and Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778).'' ``The world would have been a far different place if the ideas of the universal mind of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) had won hegemony in eighteeth-century France--as opposed to the oligarchical nihilism of the Enlightenment.'' Prints and Photographs Division/Library of Congress Immanuel Kant Francois de Voltaire Jean-Jacques Rousseau Issac Newton Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz ``The attempt to bring the American Revolution back into Europe was shipwrecked in France and the events of the French Revolution.'' ``Rousseau's ideas were the fuel of the Jacobin terror. How else could Danton's Committee of Public Safety sentence to death the chemist and friend of America Antoine Lavoisier with the words: `The Revolution has no need of science!'|'' Prints and Photographs Division/Library of Congress Revolutionaries on the barricades of Paris in 1789. A contemporary caricature of the reign of terror carried out against France's scientists and artists by the Revolution. A scene in the French Estates General during the French Revolution. Top of Page Renaissance vs. Enlightenment Site Map Overview Page

The preceding article is a rough version of the article that appeared in The American Almanac. It is made available here with the permission of The New Federalist Newspaper. Any use of, or quotations from, this article must attribute them to The New Federalist, and The American Almanac.

Publications and Subscriptions for sale. See: Publications and Subscriptions Readings from the American Almanac. Contact us at: american_almanac@yahoo.com. Why Adam Smith Is Worse Than Karl Marx by Lyndon LaRouche Printed in The American Almanac, March 27, 1995 End of Page The Evils of Free Trade Site Map Overview Page

Three Theories of "Surplus Value" Influential agencies whose incompetence in economics is shown most dramatically by the presently ongoing international derivatives catastrophe, have insisted, until now, that the 1989- 1991 economic collapse of the Comecon and Soviet blocs proved that the ideas of the British East India propagandist Adam Smith had triumphed over the economic doctrines of Karl Marx. Later, elections in various parts of the former Comecon bloc reflected a fermenting hatred of the disastrous, so-called liberal economic reforms introduced to those countries at the insistence of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her confederate, then-U.S. President George Bush. Election- trends there reflect the growing body of opinion within the population: "Even communism was not as bad as this." Recently, in both eastern Europe, including Russia most significantly, and also in the former non-communist world generally, there is a perception that both Adam Smith and Marx are failures. In this setting, there is increasing attention to sundry "third way" approaches to economic policy-shaping, "third ways" which are either actual or only wishful alternatives to the manifest lunacy of the Smith "free trade model." Among these are certain delphic pretenses at reviving what was once known world-wide as the only serious alternative to the British System, the "American System of political-economy" of U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, Mathew Carey, the German-American Friedrich List, the Americans Henry C. Carey and his student E. Peshine Smith, Russia's Count Sergei Witte, et al. Meanwhile, as I have forecast consistently during the past three years, the growth of the global "derivatives bubble" has brought the planet into an advanced phase of pre-collapse of virtually all existing monetary and financial institutions. It is important to stress, in that connection, that I have neither "predicted" nor "prophesied" such a collapse; I am no Wall Street tea-leaf reader, but rather a scientist. I have described in functional terms the unfolding of the process of breakdown leading into, and beyond the form of that systemic collapse of that global monetary system which is currently in progress. It is that description of the process which is uniquely vindicated, in contract to the failed teachings of my so-called professional competition. Now, unless governments act soon to put the leading monetary and financial institutions of the world into bankrupcyreorganization, we shall enter a far more devastating form of breakdown-crisis, the virtual disintegration of existing monetary institutions. Unless the correct choice of recovery program is made, which is neither Adam Smith's, nor Karl Marx's, nor the delphic parodies of an "American System," attempts at bankruptcy reorganization will fail as tragically as the emergency reform in Mexico is nearing disintegration at the present moment. The following comparison of Smith with Marx, and of both with the referenced delphic parodies, is made here with that immediately practical consideration in view. It is essential to issue a clear warning, that Smith (like his idiot-savant follower, Professor John von Neumann) is even worse than Marx, and that the ("scrupulously non-LaRouche") delphic parodies of the "American System" are almost as incompetent as Marx's doctrine. Our procedure here is as follows. First, we examine the notions of the two famous defenders of "free trade," Adam Smith and Karl Marx, as varieties of the same species of "Nostradamus economics." In that context, we identify the single feature of Marx's four-volume Capital which shows British economist Karl Marx as absolutely superior to that of all of the British East India Company's Haileybury School, such as Smith, Malthus, Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill, but otherwise sharing all of the pseudo-scientific follies of those colleagues. Second, after we have identified the common follies of all these British economists, Marx included, we indicate why those who parody the "American System," such as the Atlantic Monthly's James Fallows, are guilty of the same fundamental incompetence as Smith and Marx. Finally, we summarize the crucial feature of the science of physical economy, without which failure is guaranteed for any and all efforts to prevent the world's early plunge into a generations-long, planet-wide "new dark age."

Economic Science & Economic Pseudo-Science Under the influence of the teaching-order known as the Brotherhood of the Common Life and of the A.D. 1440 proceedings of the Council of Florence, with the A.D. 1461 accession of Louis XI as King of France, a new form of society was born. This new form of society, the first modern nation-state, is what is known as a "commonwealth." This broke the ancient oligarchical tradition, under which more than ninety percent of the members of society had been condemned to live, virtually or actually, as serfs, slaves, or worse, with the small remainder of society a pack of relatively privileged lackies doing the pleasure of collective rule by self-styled virtual gods of Olympus, the latter a relatively tiny aggregation of powerful oligarchical families. As typified by Louis XI's support for the educational policies of the Brotherhood of the Common Life, the way was opened, under policy of the state, for adolescent boys of poor families to be educated in a manner which Friedrich Schiller's writings and Wilhelm von Humboldt's later reforms defined as the modern Classical-humanist method of education. Although the steps taken during the twenty-odd years of Louis XI's reign were but a beginning along the road to modern society, the increase of

the per capita wealth of France during his reign exemplify the uplifting of the general condition of all strata of society under his new policies. The "commonwealth" as defined by Louis XI, and, later, by France's Jean Bodin, is the form of society typified best by the combined U.S. Declaration of Independence and 1787-1789 Federal Constitution. It is a form of society to which all citizens are dedicated constitutionally, a society to promote improvement in the conditions of life of all citizens and their posterity. It was an utter break with all axiomatic principles of feudalism and barbarism earlier. No competent study of economy can be made today, except in the light of the continuing conflict between this new "commonwealth" principle of Louis XI, and the forces, then and still today, who represent the heritage of the bitter, feudal oligarchical efforts to prevent and to destroy the perpetuation of this new, anti-oligarchical form of society. The wars which the patriots of the United States fought against the British monarchy, and also againt anglophile traitors and scoundrels in our midst, such as Presidents Pierce, Buchanan, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, and George Bush, are a prime example of this continuing conflict, continuing as the war of the British monarchy against a patriotic successor, Bill Clinton, to U.S. Presidents William McKinley, Warren Harding, Franklin Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. The emergence of a modern economic science begins with the writings of one George Gemmistos (Plethon) in fifteenth-century, Golden Renaissance Italy. The development of economic pre- science was advanced through the influence of Louis XI's "commonwealth," and such sixteenth-century influentials as Thomas Gresham in England and Jean Bodin in France. Out of these developments, during the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, there emerged a body of statecraft which came to be known generically as cameralism, in which economy was studied from the standpoint of the increase of national wealth, per capita, per household, and per square kilometer of land implicitly in use. The high-water-mark of achievement of cameralism as such is the work of Cardinal Mazarin's protege and successor, French Minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert. This development of cameralism, through the achievements of Colbert, was revolutionized, beginning 1671, by the work of Gottfried Leibniz, who transformed economics into a branch of physical science with his development of my specialty, the science of physical economy. The best known aspect of Leibniz's work in physical economy is his laying down the principles for the eighteenth-century European industrial revolution, through his development of the principles of heat- powered machinery. It was Leibniz who fostered the design of the first successfullly operating steam-engine, at the beginning of the eighteenth century. It was Leibniz's science of physical economy which influenced the economic policies of the young United States, the policies which Treasury Secretary Hamilton identified as "The American System of political-economy." Then, came pseudo-economics; the seedlings of academia's currently generally accepted economic dogmas, such as those of Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, Karl Marx, and their successors, were planted in France during the first half of the eighteenth century, under the direction of an internationally very influential Venetian abbott of that century, Antonio Conti. The leading figure of this concoction of fake economic theory, called the Physiocratic dogma, was Conti asset and founder of the dogma of "free trade" --laissez faire-- Dr. Francois Quesnay. The entirety of the British East India Company's Haileybury school in political-economy, including Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo, James Mill, John Stuart Mill, and so on, are all rooted in the dogmas of Quesnay et al. Marx, too. Virtually everything taught as "economics" in universities today, and virtually everything still accepted as "economics orthodoxy" by most governments and other institutions, is a offshoot of this same pseudo-scientific fustian.

Three Theories of "Surplus Value" Return to Top By the eighteenth century, modern European experience (i.e., since A.D. 1440) had established two facts beyond plausible objection from the successes which the "commonwealth" revolution had wrested, despite political set-backs, from the oligarchical reaction: first, that the wealth of nations, per capita and per square kilometer, had been increased in a manner exceeding all earlier experience of barbarism and feudalism; and, second, that this growth was rooted in the benefits derived from a margin of produced surplus product, representing gains in output, relative to the prior investment in the production yielding this enlarged output. Those who recall my 1966-1973 one-semester course on "Dialectical Economics," should also remember more or less vividly how I ridiculed, although justly, the three principal varieties of metaphysical kookery devised by anti-commonwealth doctrinaires to address this matter of marginal surplus. These three are, in succession: 1.The Physiocrats attribution of "surplus" to a biological epiphenomenon of the feudal ownership of rural property. The adoption of the Physiocrat Quesnay's dogma of "free trade" (laissez-faire). 2.The British East India Company's revision of the Physiocratic dogma, to define "surplus" as an epiphenomenon of Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand," an epiphenomenon of merchants' truck and barter in opium, slaves, and other items of "exchange value." Smith et al. adopt the "free trade" dogma of Quesnay as a central feature of their doctrine (although the pre- 1963 British Empire imposed "free trade" only upon its victims, not upon itself). 3."Materialist" Karl Marx's revision of the Physiocrats, Smith, and Ricardo, to define "surplus" as a biological epiphenomenon of the "horny hand of labor." Marx defends the British East India Company's taught dogma of "free

trade" as the "scientific" basis for capitalism. Every variety of generally taught economics dogmas in virtually all universities of the world today, is based upon either one of these three varieties of superstition, or a dogma derived from them. The eighteenth-century French Physiocrats were a new costuming adopted by that feudalist party which had been the core of the Venice-led opposition to King Henri IV. This party had been known as that seventeenth-century Fronde which had organized civil wars in France against Cardinal Richelieu, against Cardinal Mazarin, and Minister Colbert. It must not be assumed that these Physiocrats meant that only agricultural and mining labor were productive; for Quesnay et al., agricultural labor (e.g., serfs) were no better than "talking cattle" with human form; it was the land itself which yielded the surplus product, a product which belonged, therefore, to those noble creatures to whom God had alloted feudal ownership of the title to that land. Like the Cecil party of Francis Bacon et al. in England, the French feudalist opposition to Henri IV was under the direction of Venice's Paolo Sarpi, and was closely allied to the House of Orleans in France and to the English monarchy. This openly pro- Venetian feudalist faction, including the House of Orleans (through 1815) was, like Conti assets Montesquieu, Voltaire, Quesnay, and Berlin's adopted Maupertuis, a key ally of London during the reign of Louis XV, and a partner of British foreign service's Jeremy Bentham in the deployment of the Jacobin Terror of Robespierre, Danton, and Marat, later. The English/British and French "Enlightenment" were direct outgrowths of the influence of Sarpi, and Antonio Conti's salon was the leading eighteenth-century continuation of Sarpi's influence in London, Paris, and Frederick "the Great's" Berlin. Unlike the French Physiocrats, the British East India Company's ownership, whom Smith served as a mere lackey of Lord Shelburne from no later than 1763 onward, were not typically landed feudal aristocrats, but, rather, a Venetian-style "Lombard" merchant-financier nobility, living on the proceeds of usury from rent, trade and loans. This Venetian nobility had taken over the Netherlands and British Isles in a manner suggesting "body-snatchers from outer space." Hence, the British East India Company revised the Physiocrat dogma slightly, to relocate the epiphenomenon from the property-title of the feudal aristocrat, to the persons of the London-style rentier nobility. This adjustment was made without risking any improvement in the condition of the human cattle, rural or urban. In his turn, Marx, shifted the epiphenomenon from both landowner and Lombard merchant, to the laboring class as a whole. According to Marx, both the feudal and merchant parasite acquired their possession of surplus by alienating it from the laborer, as one "alienates" milk from a cow. The distinctive feature of the influence of Sarpi, and such followers as Antonio Conti, Giammaria Ortes, et al., is their founding and promotion of a form of neo-Aristotelean doctrine known as empiricism. This development was colored strongly by Sarpi's pretensions and reputation as a mathematician. Sarpi was the actual founder of the doctrine of mathematical causality typified by Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, and Isaac Newton; Galileo's famous treatises, including some of his fraudulently claimed earlier discoveries, were extensions of the principles of his mentor, Sarpi. Conti's salon is famous for the Europe-wide apotheosis of a relatively obscure English practitioner of black magic, Isaac Newton, as the "English Galileo," and the introduction of the mechanistic algebraic methods of Sarpi, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton to sundry aspects of social theory. Sarpi is, in fact, the "natural" father of the English, French, and German Enlightenments of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Those economic doctrines of Quesnay, Giammaria Ortes, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and Karl Marx which we have referenced here, are prime examples of this introduction of "Newtonian methods" to social theory.

Frederick Engel's Horny Thumb The only aspect of Karl Marx's Capital which sets him above his rivals of the British school of political-economy, is his emphasis upon the process of social reproduction of "the productive forces" of society as a whole. This, of course, is not original to Marx, but it is unique within the British school of which Marx's Capital is an outgrowth, the school which provides the underlying basis for the type of economic doctrine Marx represents. It appears, outside the British school, as the hallmark of commonwealth economic thinking in general, cameralism in particular, and, of course Leibniz and the "American System" economists. Otherwise, Marx's doctrine was as inane as those of the the rest of the British school and its Physiocrat predecessor. This combined British and Physiocrat school, including Marx's Capital, is fairly and best described as the Venetian school of Antonio Conti and Giammaria Ortes. This school has two outstanding axiomatic features. The the first such feature is its superstitious attribution of social surplus to some epiphenomenal origin, such as the Physiocrat's reliance upon ownership of land, per se, or the rentier British East India Company's reliance upon the usury extracted from truck, barter, and loans, or Marx's reliance upon the epiphenomenal secretions of the "horny hand of labor." One might say of Marxism: Frederick Engel's horny opposable thumb. The second feature is the attempt to apply the "Newtonian" algebraic methods of Sarpi's Galileo to social theory. E.g., that notion, as developed by the hoaxster Maupertuis and by Giammaria Ortes, which Jeremy Bentham adopted as the method of his "felicific," or "hedonistic calculus." This is the "Newtonian" doctrine that one may impute the notion of "value" to the implicit possibility of quantifying the relative intensity of pleasure-pain a person may experience from contemplation or use

of each from among an array of sense-perceptual objects presented. The radical extreme of this dogma is provided by the systems analysis of the celebrated idiot-savant Professor John von Neumann. In Marx, for example, this is implicitly the kernel of the "labor theory of value" as introduced during the opening several chapters of Capital I. The implicit concurrence of Ortes, Bentham, Marx, John Maynard Keynes, and John von Neumann on this account became the basis for the Cambridge school of systems analysis of Mrs. Joan Robinson, Lord Kaldor, Lord Solly Zuckermann, et al., which was successfully introduced to Moscow, through the Laxenberg, Austria International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), to hasten the self-destruction of the Comecon economies. Contrary to the epiphenomenal hogwash of Quesnay, Smith, and Marx alike, before any of these persons had written, Gottfried Leibniz had located the source of profit in scientific and technological progress. In Leibniz's definition of the industrial revolution he was designing, he focussed upon two leading sources of the increase of the productive powers of labor. First, the increase of the power per capita, as through the use of the heat-powered machine (e.g., Denis Papin's steam engine successfully used to power a river boat), by means of which a person employing such a machine might do the work of "a hundred others." Second, the increase of the productive powers of labor through technology as such. Both qualities specified by Leibniz appear, combined, by U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, in Hamilton's use of the notion of increase of the "productive powers of labor" through investment in "artificial labor." Underlying the epiphenomenal kookery of Quesnay, the empiricists generally, Adam Smith, Immanuel Kant, and Karl Marx, there is a common axiomatic assumption: that the creative powers of reason do not exist. In contrast to the sundry epiphenomalists, once we locate increase in the productive powers of labor in those types of changes in human behavior exemplified by scientific and technological progress, the elementary principles of Leibniz's science of physical economy appear. In summary, the argument is of the following form. Any fixed degree of advancement of a consistent mathematical physics is approximated mathematically by a formal theoremlattice. Such a lattice is characterized by a single, underlying set of axioms and postulates common to each and all of its permitted theorems. A qualitative advance in technology corresponds to an axiomatic revolution in the preceding form of mathematical physics, a difference in the imputable set of axioms and postulates, between the former and the latter. The manifest increase of productive power of labor (per capita, per household, and per square kilometer), of the latter over the former, thus corresponds to the absolute formal discontinuity separating the set of attributable axioms and postulates of the previous mathematical physics from the set of the latter. This apparent formal discontinuity is the formal-logical identification of the efficient creative mental act responsible for the advance in productive powers of labor. It is that capacity which sets the human species absolutely apart from and above the beasts. Thus, in economic science (i.e., the science of physical economy) "value" is essentially a notion associated with the superiority of the mode of economy after such progress over the prior state of affairs. The broader use of the term "value" is limited to the notion of those "inputs" to the economy and its households which are essential to bringing about a non-entropic maintenance and increase of those productive powers of labor (per capita, per household, and per square kilometer) for the society as a whole. This later process does not exist for Marx, or for the Physiocrats, or for any other branch of the British school of political-economy. Hence, all branches of today's generally accepted economics dogmas are rooted axiomatically in the same irrational superstition. Thus, in the final analysis, despite the marginal superiority of Marx's Capital over today's generally accepted brands of unievrsity economics teaching, all varieties are as bad as, or worse than Marxism. On the side of the Marxists, Frederick Engels carries this reductionist superstition to the wilder extremes, with his absurd babblings on the subject of "the opposable thumb." Either Engels never made love to another one of the higher apes which H.R. H. Prince Philip insists that both he and Engels are, or, if he did, perhaps the lights were turned out. In the effort to evade the economic significance of the work of scientists, Engels, arguing like the most vulgarly anarchosyndicalist sort of trade-union organizer, seeks to locate the root of technological progress as an epiphenomenon of some mechanical sort of biological characteristic of higher apes generally. Can one be surprised that such opinions might prove to be ostensibly the epiphenomenal outpourings of a British textile manufacturer whose profit and pleasure were derived from the profits of U.S. slave-produced cotton?

"Mixed Economy" Senator Phil Gramm, whom Hollywood has exposed implicitly as the fictional Forrest Gump's evil twin, is among those arguing implicitly that the increases in standard of living formerly achieved by modern Western civilization have been the result of the kinds of British economics doctrine we have justly ridiculed here. Is it fair to say that Gramm is not simply incompetent, but also lying? The fact has been, that, throughout the recent five centuries, the actual national economies of Western European civilization have been mixed economies. From the establishment of modern France, in 1461, until the gradual replacement of scientific and technological progress by "post-industrial" utopianism, beginning about thirty years ago, all of Western civilization was dominated by the unignorable advantage of scientific and technological progress. Even the most hate-filled enemies of progress, such as the Venetian nobility itself, dared not ignore the military and other advantages of science and technology. Nations whose oligarchies hated science were obliged to employ it, lest they be overwhelmed by the technological progress

of their rivals. Even those oligarchical states, such as Britain, which would have preferred to degrade at least eighty percent of their own population to the serf-like condition of illiterate human cattle, were terrified repeatedly by the prospect that their French, German, and American rivals were more advanced than the British Isles. The struggle between the oligarchical whim to crush scientific and technological progress, and the fear of the result should one not match the progress of one's rivals, has been the setting in which various forms of "mixed economy," both technologically progressive and anti-scientific oligarchical forms, have dominated every part of the world, until about thirty years ago. The recent decades' change appeared in the aftermath of the Cuba "missiles crisis." From the beginning of the twentieth century, Bertrand Russell had been committed to the elimination of the modern nation-state, to make way for a world government, such as the United Nations Organization. His objective was to ensure the perpetual rule of this planet by a the Venetian-style British oligarchy of which he, like his grandfather, was a representative. By the repeated testimony of his own writings of the early 1920s and later, Russell was a racist and mass- murderer, intent on wiping out vast numbers of Africans, Muslims, Hindus, Chinese and others. Russell was also the leading architect of the policy of using weapons so terrifying that no nation would be willing to risk war in its own defense, and would therefore submit to the whims of world government; he was the leading author of the nuclear-weapons age which began with the militarily needless dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 (contrary to the popularized lie, not a single U.S. life was saved by dropping those bombs). Russell set forth his post-war nuclear-weapons policy once more in the September 1946 edition of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, in which he first called for preparing for a "preventive nuclear attack" on Russia for the purpose of establishing the United Nations Organization as a world government to replace the governments of every nation, including the United States. In 1955, N. Khrushchev sent emissaries to Bertrand Russell in London, to proffer acceptance of Russell's proposal for peace through mutual nuclear terror. Russell's policy of "mutual and assured nuclear annihilation" was adopted on the initiative of Russell's stooge, Leo Szilard, at the Second Pugwash Conference at Quebec, in 1958. Khrushchev's dalliance with the West on this deal blew up, temporarily, between the time of the U-2 incident and the 1962 "Cuba missiles crisis." 1962-1963 negotiations between the U.S.A. and Moscow, mediated by Russell in London, reestablished the Russell-Szilard-Kissinger-McNamara doctrine of "mutual and assured nuclear destruction" as the basis for relations between the nuclear super-powers. During 1963, this post-Missiles-Crisis agreement to the Pugwash Conference doctrine of "Mutual and Assured Destruction" was sealed in the blood of the murdered President John F. Kennedy. In the wake of Kennedy's assassination, the AngloAmerican anglophile establishment, represented by such public figures as National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy and Secretary of Defense Robert S. "Body Count" McNamara, were confident that the age of general warfare had ended, that only limited wars, managed by diplomats, such as Bundy's, and, later, "Pugwashee" Kissinger's "surrogate war" in Indo-China, were possible. The results of that "pugwashed" thinking are typified by the 1964 publication of the Russellite The Triple Revolution by Robert Hutchin's Ford Foundation-funded Fund for the Republic, by the mass recruitment of university-based "baby boomers" to the rock- drug-sex counterculture and "post-industrial society," the emergence of the "science-fiction" kookery of Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1967 announcement of that "technetronic age" which Alvin Toffler terms the "Third Wave," H.R.H. Prince Philip's pagan nature-worship in the name of ecology, and military video- game entertainments (with real corpses) such as "Air Land Battle 2000." The case of two Executive Orders highlights the connection. Not long after President Kennedy's assassination by forces linked to British intelligence's Permindex assassination organization, the same National Security Advisor, McGeorge Bundy, who played a key part in closing off the investigation of the assassination, induced President Lyndon B. Johnson to sign an Executive Order revoking President Kennedy's earlier Order to McNamara to phase down the U.S. invovement in a Vietnam conflict. Once Bundy saw President Johnson boxed into that decision to escalate the war in Vietnam, Bundy left government, to play a key role in funding the anti-war movement and other "Clockwork Orange"-style social- work projects, from his new ensconcement at the Ford Foundation. The target of the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam "Clockwork Orange" war was not some Communist adversary; it was the minds of the people of the United States. The first target was that strata of "Baby Boomers" --the prospective future intelligentsia of the United States-- then of draftable age, on university campuses. Those among us teaching on key U.S. university campuses during the 1966-1973 interval saw, first hand, the relevant effect of the induced terror of the nightly broadcast TV special, known as "The War in Vietnam." This televised spectacular, "The O.J. Simpson Trial of the 1960s," reduced the majority of that social stratum on campus to a state of existentialist panic; it was under these conditions, that the rock-drug-sex counterculture, as orchestrated by degenerates such as Dame Margaret Mead of the Josiah Macy., Jr. Foundation and New York Museum of Natural History, was introduced, as a London Tavistock Institute-style cultural-paradigm shift, into the majority of that campus stratum. The New Ager's scenario of 1965-1972 had the following crucial elements. "Are you a suburbanite Baby Boomer of draftable age sitting on campus today? Nightly TV images of the corpse-which-might-be-you making a mess of your head? Try sex as diversion. With whom? With anyone, anywhere, anytime--with any thing. Still getting those images? Drop a little acid; marijuana works better with a a bottle of cheap wine to slosh it down. Not good enough? Ever try pounding your head, again and again, against the end of the crib? Try an all-night rock session." Decades later, the echoes of 1965-1972 are still producing psychological carnage. "Still getting bad vibrations, even after all

these years? Try a ride on the mid-life-crisis roller- coaster. Come to live in virtual reality, and get away from the reality you lack the courage to face." The result of that "cultural paradigm-shift" launched thirty-odd years ago, has been several decades transition from the United States as an agro-industrial power typified by the 1950s and 1960s image of a modern farmer, scientist, and engineer, to the image of New York City's festering, Clockwork- Orange decay under the rule of mathematical-logic fanatics, who are virtually incapable of changing a light-bulb in real life, who win wars, and make trillions of dollars in electronic playmoney, while destroying the world, all in the virtual reality of video-games and financial-market speculation in junk bonds and other derivatives. This latter result is the consequence of eliminating one of the two legs of the form of "mixed economy" which Western civilization (in particular) represented during the centuries preceding 1964. The science and technology leg, its correlated educational feature, and the war-time Bretton Woods agreements on monetary stability, were each and all virtually eliminated over the interval 1964-1972. Despite the liars who argue the contrary in fraudulent reports issued from certain governmental and other institutions, the physical economy of the United States has been collapsed greatly during the interval 1967-1995. The medium- range steel worker of 1967-1969 who could still support a family has vanished, replaced by the virtually useless hamburger-flipper with a sub-living wage. Economy is withering; what is increasing is poverty, decay, gambling, drug-pushing, mugging, murder, financial speculation, illiteracy, bad taste, decadence generally, and the indices of the financial markets. Some lunatics see signs of economic growth in the fact that financial aggregates -- prices and indebtedness -- are way, way up. In former times, before the calamitous "cultural paradigm- shift" of 1964-1972, the value of the U.S. economy (in particular) was the net result of the pluses in real economy (agriculture, basic economic infrastructure, manufacturing, and quality health-care and education), combined with the minuses of parasitism (gambling, crime, speculation, Hollywood, Sigmund Freud's pernicious influence, and so on). As long as agricultural and industrial output per capita were increasing, as long as power per capita, education per capita, infrastructural improvements per square kilometer, and scientific investment were increasing, these useful aspects of our national economy gave substance to the economy as a whole. Now, the healthy side of our mixed economy has been systematically gutted; much bone, in addition to flesh, is already gone. Yet, the price of the total, mixed economy has been greatly increased in the form of the great debt-bubble centered around the derivatives speculation of the "free trade" sector. The monetary overvaluation of the total economy has become an unsustainable financial bubble, which must be either deflated soon, or it will pop. In any case, as long as the world continues to attempt, futilely, to meet payments obligations to the financial bubble, the world is doomed; either bankrupt the bubble, or civilization at large can not survive. The time has come, that the only certain chance of any of us reaching the year 1997 in a civilized condition, is that someone in authority throwing the existing international monetary and financial institutions into government-directed bankruptcyreorganization. The institutions to be taken over so include the Chairman Greenspan's U.S. Federal Reserve System, which, if all assets and liabilities are taken into account together, is already bankrupt. A successful bankruptcy signifies that we have a plan of economic reorganization, to turn a bankrupt U.S.A. economy into a prosperous one, again. The essence of that answer to that challenge is that we do have a fully workable, provable plan available for that purpose. The plan, in short, is to return to the policies of Treasury Secretary Hamilton, and bankrupt, out of existence, the modern remains of the oligarchical rentier tradition. The success of such a revival of the American System depends upon a general system of education which fosters the scientific progress indispensbale for restoring the economy to health once again. The question is, who has the brains, guts, and position of authority to take the lead in doing just that. Top of Page The Evils of Free Trade Site Map Overview Page

The preceding article is a rough version of the article that appeared in The American Almanac. It is made available here with the permission of The New Federalist Newspaper. Any use of, or quotations from, this article must attribute them to The New Federalist, and The American Almanac.

Publications and Subscriptions for sale. So You Wish to Learn All About Economics, by Lyndon LaRouche, $10.00. The LaRouche Program to Save the Nation, $10.00. The Science of Christian Economics -- prison writings by Lyndon LaRouche. $15.00. Readings from the American Almanac. Contact us at: american_almanac@yahoo.com.

To summarize the issue before us: In the document which appears immediately following this introduction, scientists leading Russia's most authoritative econometrics institution (CEMI), demonstrate, factually, that Russia's liberal reforms have turned out to have been, one of the most monstrous, strategically deadly incompetencies in the history of political-economy. [ 1 ] Yet, stubbornly wrong-headed policy-shapers, among the monetarist Torquemadas of the International Monetary Fund, the U.S.A.'s National Endowment for Democracy, the U.S. Republican Party leadership, and elsewhere, continue to insist that Russia impose these ruinous "reform and democracy" policies ever more strictly. Caesar! "Beware the ides of March!" [ 2 ] Perhaps, no one could know, exactly, what major crises will, or will not break out during fateful March 1997. Yet, at the recent bankers' meeting in Davos, Switzerland, the coming March was considered by some relevant celebrities a likely occasion for a major new "bump" in the presently ongoing collapse of the world's monetary and financial systems. Following that Davos meeting, on Feb. 6, the Federal Employment Office of Germany announced, that even the officially acknowledged number of unemployed in Germany has reached the highest levels since the Great Depression of the early 1930s. The second, world-wide, Great Depression of the Twentieth Century, has now arrived; now, during the near term ahead, as during the Depression years of 1929-1932, things can only become worse, until a Roosevelt-echoing economic-recovery program is brought in. [ 3 ] In this situation, for growing numbers of top bankers and related policy-makers, March looms large. In this setting of onrushing world crisis, notable figures of Russia have warned the world, publicly, that upcoming March, or, perhaps April, may prove to have been a likely timefor the outbreak of major reflections of a burgeoning social and political crisis in Russia. March might pass? "Aye, Caesar; but [the ides of March have] not gone." [ 4 ] The danger is, that, when the next phase of the Russia crisis strikes, the U.S. government, under pressure from the Republican majority in the Senate, might still be sitting, like England's legendary, doomed King Canute, howling denials into the face of the winds and waves of the rising storms of crisis, while clinging, stubbornly, to its present, catastrophically failed "Russia Reform" policy. Russia today, is the leading center of an on-coming global pandemic of political tornadoes and earthquakes, each promising to strike us, at, or near the extremes of the relevant scales. In the recent CEMI report whose English translation is published in this issue of EIR, Academician Lvov, Dr. Grebennikov, and Dr. Dementyev, document those developments which theaten epoch-making convulsions during Russia's near future. That report demonstrates, that the U.S. government must proceed quickly, to scrap the foolish, catastrophically failed "reform and democracy" policy, the which was introduced into U.S. policy by the governments of Prime Minister Magaret Thatcher and the man her memoir described as her gullible lackey, President (Sir) George Bush. [ 5 ] The U.S.A. could not afford the folly of not scrapping that British, Thatcher-Bush, geopolitical policy, introduced to eastern Europe during 1989-1992, which has come to be known as the "reform policy." For fully sane persons, today's urgent question is: What is the available alternative to the lunacy of continuing the present economic policies of the U.S.A., IMF, et al.? In addressing the accelerating crisis in Russia, that question must be defined in a world- wide context, rather than a narrowly Russian context, or, rather than the context of the region of the former Soviet Union and Comecon. The situation must be defined, globally, on two levels. [ 6 ] On the level of general, global policy-making, the onrushing, global financial collapse must be met in the reawakened spirit of world leadership by war-time U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt. The President of the United States must bring together a concert, of at least a quorum of world powers, and other partners, to establish a three-fold counteraction, to control and reverse the downward-spiralling Great Depression currently in progress. As the present writer outlined the three crucial features of such a global recovery program, during his remarks opening a Feb. 5 conference held in Washington, D.C.: [ 7 ] 1.An emergency meeting of such collaborating powers must be convened, to deploy emergency action, as might be done during a short weekend, to put the existing, bankrupt international monetary and financial systems into government-supervised bankruptcy- reorganization, and a new system immediately established on the basis of: a) The best features of the 1946-1966 Bretton Woods agreements, reestablishing a system of relatively fixed parities, b) a revival of the policy of mutually advantageous protectionist measures of trade and tariff agreements, modelled upon the anti-Adam Smith, Franklin- Washington-Hamilton-Carey-List-Lincoln American System of political economy, c) establishing national banking, to supersede the bankrupted central banking systems, as a

means for generating and regulating a system of productive credit-creation for recovery of national economies and of world trade. [ 8 ] 2.The adoption of the "Eurasia Land-Bridge" development program, which is already the joint policy of China and a growing number of other nations, as the centerpiece of a global economic- recovery program. [ 9 ] 3.The revival of the role of the strategic machine-tool sector of a "full set" economic model, [ 10 ] as the crucial driving agency for increase of the productive powers of labor throughout the world. [ 11 ] Turn now to the subsumed, second level. We focus attention, more narrowly, on the cases of Russia, andrelevant other nations formerly within the Moscow-centered Comecon system. We turn our attention to the one legacy of the Soviet system, the "strategic" machine-tool sector of Russia's military-industrial capabilities, without whose revival Russia could not become an economically viable nation within the foreseeable future. We examine the subject-matter of the CEMI report with the implied assumption, that Russia is a key participant in the "new Bretton Woods" emergency conference, which, we propose, must be convoked on the initiative of President Bill Clinton. An ecumenical strategy Whenever we might consider an attempt, to bring the presently mostly ruined array of the world's nation-states into a general order of peace and prosperity among sovereign nations, poses the question: "Under what common principle shall such a culturally diverse assembly of nations be brought together in this way?" The European civilization, born in Classical Greece, is about 2,500 years old, and was itself divided by the Roman Emperor Diocletian in the year A.D. 286, establishing the premises for what became the cultural cleavage between what Diocletian set on the one side, to the present day, as 1) "western Europe," all of whose achievements, ever since, have reflected the Platonic tradition of Augustinian Christianity, and, on the other side, what has been, to the present day, 2) "eastern Europe," dominated by the Aristotelean heritage of Byzantium. The remaining, principal divisions among the planet's cultural matrices, are of the species Islam, Confucian, Hindu, or Buddhist, or of syncretic cultures combining axiomatic features otherwise found among these four, and also from European civilization. The significance of this point is underscored by the growing number of nations which are becoming, or promising to become, active partners of China, Iran, and others, in developing what today's China policy identifies as "The New Silk Road": a spider-web of galactic- arm-like, economic-development corridrs, each corridor built around a "spinal column" of a transportation trunk-line, all linking the Atlantic coast of Europe with the coasts of the Pacific and Indian oceans. The growing interest of France and Germany in these "New Silk Road" developments, indicates that the world's greatest concentration of "strategic machine-tool" capacity, the "Productive Triangle: Paris, Vienna, Berlin, Lille, Paris" [Figure 1], will be efficiently integrated, functionally, with the regions of Asia in which the greatest part of the world's present and future population is embarked upon development: East and South Asia. [ 12 ] All of those principal cultural divisions of mankind which we have identified, are located chiefly along the routes of this proposed Eurasian development program. Is there some common, axiomatic quality of principle, whose authority might be commonly recognized by peoples representing each and all of the indicated cultural divisions of mankind? The authors of the CEMI report do not address the issues explicitly in that way, but they touch upon the matter implicitly, and in a most efficient manner, in the middle section of their report, under the sub-head "Support of Revival." [ 13 ] We ask the reader to stand behind this writer's shoulder, watching as the author now turns to address the content of that portion of the CEMI report; share the view of the matter provided by this writer's standpoint in economic science. Since the author has elaborated the immediately following aspect of our argument in numerous, earlier, published locations, interpolated summaries will suffice here. There exists a relevant body of combined evidence of historic, pre-historic demographic, and related evidence, for known cultures, and cohering archeological evidence for earlier traces of actual or putative ancient man. In earlier publications, the present writer has frequently referenced the best available approximation of a consensus among relevant professionals, respecting such demographic evidence. Ths spans empirical evidence collected from as remote a time as 1 to 4 millions years. [ 14 ] This evidence demonstrates that the human species is of a different type than any other living species. [ 15 ] Were man an animal, our species' physiological ecological potential were of the order of higher apes, a maximum of several millions living individuals under even the most favorable conditions actually existing on Earth during the recent 2 millions years' cycles of waxing, and temporarily waning glaciation. [ 16 ] By the time of Europe's mid-Fourteenth Century "New Dark Age," the total population of this planet had reached several hundred millions human individuals. The crucial fact, with which a science of economics, and any competent species of historiography, begins, is, that: the global impact of the development of the modern European form of sovereign nation-state, has been, despite all of those contrary evils spewed from within modern European civilization, a greater improvement in the

demographic characteristics, of whole populations and of households, than was effected by any and all earlier, other forms of cultures, combined, during all earlier human existence. Admittedly, the effort to break free of the imperial legacy of ancient Babylon and the Roman empires, to establish sovereign nations, antedates the Fifteenth Century formation of the first modern nation-state, France under Louis XI, during A.D. 1461-1483. Nonetheless, the form of nation-state economy which was set into motion by Louis XI's reforms, presents, for the first time in human existence, that specific combination of policies which has been the source of the hyperbolic improvement in this planet's general human condition over the interval 1461-1966. [ 17 ] The net exceptional achievements of the influence of the modern European form of sovereign nation-state republic, over the interval 1461-1966, serves the scientist and historian, alike, as what physicist Bernhard Riemann's method identifies as a unique experiment, through aid of which to bring into empirical focus, that principle of human nature which has always set the potential of the human individual, in every culture, absolutely apart from, and above that of each and all of the animal species. [ 18 ] Within that framework, situate a clinical view of the sharply contrasted successes and failures within the broad sweep of the 1918- 1991 Soviet economy, as this is reflected within the CEMI report. This approach is uniquely indispensable to any competent opinion respecting the possibilities for rebuilding the economy of Russia. More broadly, these paradoxical features of the contrast between the relatively successful, former Soviet economy, and the utter failure of Russia's economy under the so-called "liberal reforms," provide a valuable lesson to the world as a whole. When we compare the impacts of the military sector of the economy in the former Soviet Union, with the best, exemplary cases of the western European model of modern nation-states, such as Colbert's and Lazare Carnot's France, the rise of Schiller's, Gauss's, and the Humboldt brothers' Nineteenth-Century Germany, and the 1789-1966 U.S.A. under the guidance of its Leibnizian Federal Constitution, [ 19 ] we are obliged to recognize that these included successes, in both systems, express an underlying, axiomatic principle of Leibniz's teaching and influence, the which is commonly expressed within the best economic achievements of both the "Western" nation-state and the Soviet models. The authors of the CEMI report put their fingers on the relevant point. In the section we have referenced above, they identify Russia's four "trumps in the game" of economic revival: "First, there is the nation's intellect, its education"; "Second, there are scientific schools which have traditionally defined the image of Russian science"; "Third, there is the unique geographical position of Russia in the world community," the bridge-head for the Eurasia Land-Bridge, unifying Atlantic and Pacific Eurasia; nd, "Fourth," presently, largely idled, "accumulated production capacities in different branches of industry," which, if reactivated, would "satisfy a considerable share of internal demand," and also, "provide large supplies for export." Look at the CEMI picture of Russia's potential, henceforth, from the vantage-point of Figure 2, reproduced here from the author's "Return to the Machine-Tool Principle."[ 20 ] The common role which state-sponsored universal education, scientific discovery, state-directed infrastructural development, and investment in scientific and technological progress, have represented, in successful periods of economic growth within both "western European" types of sovereign nation-states, also within Russia under Tsars Peter I and Alexander II, and under the later Soviet system, reflects a principle which underlies all human progress, since the earliest prehistoric times. This deeply underlying principle, is the nature of man: the quality, universal to the newborn human individual, which sets mankind apart from, and above all lower forms of life. That underlying principle, is therefore a universal principle, which is common to the nature of all men and women, whether they be products of western European or Byzantine, or Islamic, Confucian, Vedic, or Buddhist cultures. This underlying principle is, thus, a true ecumenical principle, the authoritative basis, in scientific certainty, for a law of economy common to all civilized society. The nature of 'economic man' For Christian, Jew, and Muslim, this ecumenical principle is traditionally defined, canonically, as the kernel of their religious belief respecting the nature of man. In the only literate choice of English prose style, that of William Shakespeare and the King James Version, Genesis 1:26-30, the terms employed are man and woman made in the "image of God," to "have dominion" over the Earth and every living thing within it. For Confucius, the matter is stated differently. Some n the tradition of the Vedas might agree, but others among them, like some Buddhists, might not. As the Soviet case brings the point into view, many today do not accept any religious teaching at all. Thus, for the sake of ecumenical universality, we must let the stones speak; if Genesis had never been written, the testimony of nature itself compels us to the same conclusion respecting the nature of the individual new- born person. It is easily demonstrated, that the nature of the individual person so defined can mean nothing other than Reason, as scientists such as Nicolaus of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler, and Gottfried Leibniz defined the use of Reason. How does man effectively assert dominion, except by increasing the human population, as Genesis prescribes? Since the limit of living population for ape-like, or so-called "ecological" man, could not

exceed several millions individuals, the dominion which Genesis prescribes could be attained only through increasing the potential relative population-density of the human species. The latter signifies, in practice, that we must simultaneously decrease the average land-area required to sustain a typical individual or family household, while decreasing the morbidity rates and otherwise improving the demographic characteristics of those populations, and increasing the material standard of living for households, while also increasing the physical productive powers of labor per capita. When we look backward, toward prehistoric periods of human existence, we discern, rather readily, that certain changes in technology account for the general ordering of demographic improvements, relative to type of quality of area of habitation. Looking closely at the reasons for success or failure in the physical-economic performance of modern nation-state economies, enables us to define these matters in a much more refined way than the relevant archeologists have done. The development of the modern, sovereign nation-state economy,is the appropriate choice of subject for this inquiry; the connections are shown most clearly by focussing upon the industrial production of physical goods. In this approach, highlighting the coincidences and differences between the approach taken by the authors of the CEMI report, and the present author's work, should prove most usefully provocative. For the best resolution of the functional relationships within that phase of the economy as a whole, we must focus upon the interconnections among: 1) a certain quality of education, the so-called Classical Christian humanist mode, as typified by the Humboldt reforms in Nineteenth-Century Germany; 2) the "strategic" machine- tool-design sector of the economy as a whole; and, 3) the relationship between the labor-force so educated, and the environment of production and product-design defined by the interventions of that "strategic" machine-tool sector. To meet the standards of measurement inhering in competent experimental physics, we must resort to Riemann's approach, as rooted explicitly in Plato's principle of hypothesis. [ 21 ] Although this author has defined this principle of hypothesis repeatedly in earlier published locations, the widespread ignorance of this principle of scientific method, even among science professionals, makes mandatory no less than a summary set of definitions. A fair definition of hypothesis as such, from the standpoint of a simple Euclidean geometry, proceeds as follows. Given a set of propositions in geometry, subject to the restriction, that no pair among those propositions be mutually inconsistent. Employing Socratic method, adduce a set of underlying definitions, axioms, and postulates, the which is not inconsistent with any among such a subject set of propositions. That set of definitions, axioms, and postulates, taken as a unity, constitutes a simple choice of exemplary Platonic hypothesis. All possible propositions which are not inconsistent with that hypothesis, constitute a theorem-lattice. For the case of geometry concede, the baseless, arbitrary character of the assumption, that extension of space and time is limitless, and expunge the fallacious, Euler-Lagrange presumption, that extension is, axiomatically, perfectly continuous, [ 22 ] without the possibility of intervening discontinuity. Next, concede, that any discovered new physical principle, such as one of experimental physics, which is validated by measurement, is an extensible principle to be treated as an added "dimension" of a physical space-time geometry. The result, is the development of a new hypothesis, superseding the hypothesis overturned by the relevant, validated, experimental evidence. [ 23 ] The latter view of the progress of experimental physical science, defines the historical process in terms of successions of hypotheses, each representing a potential advancement in the human condition over the knowledge represented by the hypothesis which it has superseded. Therefore, Science is defined as knowledge of those principles of revolutionary discovery, the which lead, from experimentally-based paradoxes overturning established hypotheses, through discoveries of validated new principles, to synthesis and experimental validation of superseding hypotheses. Thus, Plato, like Leonardo da Vinci and Johannes Kepler, definesReason, and Leibniz necessary and sufficient reason. Given a validated principle of nature: what is the hypothesis which corresponds to the experimental-physical reality of that validated principle? The hypothesis which satisfies that restriction, constitutes the relevant expression of "necessary and sufficient reason." To bring into focus the crucial principle upon which the interdependent roles of education and the machine-tool principle depend, we must go a step higher, but in the same sense of direction. In any competent mode of education, the student learns the validated principles discovered in the past, by reenacting the original mental act of discovery within the individual pupil's own, sovereign mental procsses. The pupil is presented with a paradoxical fact, and in a paradoxical manner; the student is challenged to solve the paradox. By generating solutions to such paradoxes, and discovering how they may be validated experimentally, the student has relived the mental action of the original discovery. That student now knows the principle; if he had merely learned it, as from a modern style of textbook, he does not know the principle; the latter pupil's ostensibly correct formal answer to an examination question, has no more moral authority than mere academic gossip, mere "learning." [ 24 ]

In the case, that the student has enjoyed an education of the superior quality associated with the Platonic humanist approach of Schiller, Humboldt, et al., the student has relived a significant portion of those discoveries of principle upon which all historical progress of mankind, up to that time, has been premised. In addition to learning each of these Many discoveries of principle one at a time, the student is made familiar with the repeated experiencing, within his or her mind, of that method of synthesis of such discoveries, the which orders the series of hypotheses corresponding to these discoveries. That method of synthesis corresponds to what Plato identified as higher hypothesis, and, also, as hypothesizing the higher hypothesis. This notion of "higher hypothesis," is the key to understanding the function of education and the machine-tool principle in the national successes of modern physical economy. This notion of higher hypothesis takes us above the level of any generally accepted classroom-blackboard form of deductive mathematics. Leibniz sometimes identifies this higher domain by the term Analysis Situs. [ 25 ] Consider three types of examples of Analysis Situs. Cognitive development: In the process of superseding, successively, a series of hypotheses, the process experienced by the student's mind corresponds to an ordering of a succession of hypotheses. Since there can e no deductive consistency among different hypotheses, what is the quality of that anti-entropic ordering, the which subsumes an ordered succession of hypotheses? Living processes: Are characterized by an anti-entropic ordering, like that of successive states of hypothesis. Ostensibly non-living processes: In the particular, what we presume to be non-living processes are characterized by an implicitly entropic ordering; however, the universe taken in the large exhibits anti-entropy. Thus, considering the efficiency of the anti- entropic interaction among the ostensibly non-living, living, and cognitive orderings, the ordering of the particular process within the universe, is determined by a subsuming (e.g., underlying) principle of the universe as a whole. These orderings in physical space-time are implicitly Riemannian, expressions of that principle of higher hypothesis, a notion of the kind of formally discontinuous function which subsumes the implicitly measurable ordering of a succession of mutually inconsistent, physical space-time hypotheses. Similarly, experimental science examines non-living, living, and cognitive processes, as interacting within a domain of ideas which are respectively microphysical, macrophysical, and astrophysical in quality. Thus, science is to be mapped in terms of permutations of efficient relations within the nine-cell domain so presented. [ 26 ] These relations are, in turn, expressed primarily in terms of ordered successions of mutually non-consistent physical space-time hypotheses. [ 27 ] All of the permutations, taken together as one, are, in turn, subsumed by a general principle of ordering. [ 28 ] Such, in summary, are the outlines of a generalized Analysis Situs. When we return to economics, from considering these implications of the work of Gauss and Riemann for the further elaboration of Leibniz's principle of Analysis Situs, we have the following results bearing upon both the nature of the human individual mind, and the efficient baring of the education of this mind upon sustainably profitable (i.e., anti-entropic) forms of physical-economic processes. Once a Classical humanist mode of education is examined from the standpoint of a Riemannian form of Analysis Situs, we are enabled to form distinct ideas respecting the parallelism between, first, those advances in knowledge which arise from reexperiencing the original discovery and experimental validation of universal principles, and, second, those increases in anti-entropic qualities of "full set" physical- economic processes, the which result from investment in the increase of the productive powers of labor through scientific and technological progress. As Leibniz argues, in his 1671 Society and Economy, we must recognize that the physical-economic productive powers of labor depend upon provision of the necessary preconditions of cultural development and situation of work, upon which the sustaining of such expressed productivity depends. These include the cultural conditions of family life, on which the relevant conditions of health and cognitive powers depend. As Leibniz elaborates these notions in his later writings bearing upon the science of physical economy, the development of basic economic infrastructure, is such a precondition, as are capital- intensity of production and density of power supplied to operations of production and infrastructure. Thus, to employ a common classroom term, we may speak of a required "energy of the system," enveloping the preconditions for producing and sustaining of a specified potential, physical-economic productivity of labor, as set within an historically defined situation. Thus, "full set" physical-economic processes express implied functional relations, between changes in per-capita and per-square- kilometer values of "energy of the system" and "free energy." The required increases in "energy of the system," needed to sustain, or to increase potential productive powers of labor, represent a functional restriction. The relate requirement, to increase the physical-economic capital-intensity, power-intensity, and technological advancement, of both infrastructural development and production, is a functional restriction. With those, and related constraints, the general requirement is that the physical-economic ratio of "free energy" to "energy of the system" must not decline. In any function consistent with any of today's generally accepted, classroom, deductive mathematics, the physical process so described, is formally, and also actually, an entropic "zero-sum game." A physical economy which meets the indicated functional requirement for maintaining or increasing the ratio of "free

energy" to "energy of the system," is, from the standpoint of Analysis Situs, characteristically anti-entropic. Similarly, any effort to define a living species genetically, defines that species' population-function as attritionally entropic. The anti- entropy of the lower living species, lies where Nicolaus of Cusa located a principle of evolutionary development, in the Analysis Situs which locates the emergence of higher species from within arrays of lower ones: a living species is, in Cusa's (i.e., Analysis Situs) argument, functionally, a relatively lower species which participates in the existence, or coming-into-being of a higher species. Man is the only species which evolves, within itself, to higher cultural states of evolution. On this point, we encounter the kernel of the absolute difference which sets mankind apart from, and absolutely above all other forms of life. Man participates in the higher species he is becoming, and, participates, thus, as such a lower species, in that Creator whom Plato identifies as the Composer of the universe, the Good. Thus, such is the universal nature of individual man. Thus, human nature appears to be from the standpoint of the professional practice of experimental science. However, there is an additional feature which is crucial: the human emotion, which Plato and the Christians identified by the Greek term agapem. The combined standpoints of Analysis Situs and agapem are what Kepler and Leibniz recognize as the principle of Reason. This notion of Reason is thus the name for the universal principle of which the stones might speak, the universal, ecumenical nature of man. This is the quality of the individual which must be addressed by the interacting requirements of education and household life. It is the development of these cognitive (creative) potentials of the individual, through household nurture and education of the young, which the Classical humanist education best fosters, which develops the moral character of the student, by bringing to higher levels of fruition that quality which sets the human individual apart from, and above the beasts. The individual so nurtured and educated, may translate validated discoveries of principle, and of improved hypothesis, into qualitatively improved designs of products, and qualitatively and quantitatively improved infrastructure and productive processes. The individual so nurtured and educated, as a member of the labor force, is enabled to assimilate these improvements in design. Otherwise, that individual represents a society which is capable of making effective use of the products and improvements in infrastructure so provided. Thus, those cited four features of the former Soviet society referenced within the CEMI report, address the kernel of those Nineteenth-Century developments in modern agro-industrial, nation- state economies, the latter which embody the vast superiority of physical economic performance of modern European civilization, including Soviet society, over all historic and prehistoric predecessors. Thus far, the programmatic approach to revival of Russia's economy, implicit in the CEMI report, satisfies the conditions specified, at least in approximation. We support that conclusion by aid of the included presumption, that the CEMI authors would not object to refinements in education policy along the lines the present author has impied here. The nature of human motivation This brings us to the crucial issue of motivation. Some leading former Soviet scientists have concurred with the present writer's observation, that true scientists need no other motivation than love of scientific work to push themselves to, or near the limits of their capacity for achievements. Generally, as long as they have sufficient personal sustenence to meet the requirements of their personal and household affairs, dedicated professionals would prefer to devote themselves to scientific work, than be offered any better-paid alternatives. When one considers the scarely stunning relative pay- scales of the typical Soviet scientist, and compares this with the productivity of Soviet science against world standards, there can be no reasonable doubt of what we have just argued on this point. The same is also true for the most serious scientists and professional Classical artists, even in the Golcondas of western Europe and North America; even the most highly celebrated such artists would be devoted to their profession, were they confronted with the painful choice, either to eke out their material existence within the bounds of their profession, sell themselves "on the street" of cheap entertainments, or, labor outside the profession. Now, put to one side the special case, of the motivation of the best scientists and the moral sort of Classical artists. How might the generality of the population be motivated for progress, rather than seeking riches like some tragically decadent, pleasure-chasing character out of a Balzac novel, or, of John Locke's perverse desires? In Christianity, for example, the "test of death" obliges the mourners to reflect on the meaning of the brief

historical passage of the individual through mortal life. [ 29 ] In the balance which may be struck, in preparing the elegy for that solemn occasion, insightful reflection may discern that aspect of the departed one's life's work which should be regarded by mankind as a blesing supplied by the Hand of Providence. In the words of the Islamic poet, we may refer to the idea, that the individual whose passing has satisfied "the test of death" in that way, had died "with a smile on his face." In the tradition of Confucius, the same principle is adumbrated by a different tactic. Did not Soviet society seek a proper balance-scale for a like purpose? The pervasiveness of conscience-stricken regrets, reminds us, that relatively few have not often mislain the will, to live up to the standard implied by such a "test of death." We should be reminded, so, that it is not sufficient merely to contemplate such a value; one must be governed by the efficient passion to realize it. What, whence, such quality of passion? The implicitly required motivation need not be sought outside the bounds of Reason itself; that passion was known to Plato, and to the Christian Apostle Paul, by the Greek name agapem. Here, we place the emphasis on the fact, that that specific quality of emotion is known to whoever has succeeded in producing valid original discoveries of principle by the Classical humanist methods indicated above. It is known, similarly, to whoever has, otherwise, reflected upon the specific quality of passion, the which is required to drive to the point of successful "break-through," the replicating of another's original solution to an ontological paradox. Without that specific quality of passion, the which is indispensable to drive concentration to the outer boundaries of present knowledge bearing upon the relevant paradox, there could be neither valid original discoveries of principle, nor the effective replication, and, thus, actual knowledge of, any original such discovery from the past. That lack of precisely that quality of passion, is the basis for the entire philosophy of Leonhard Euler's follower, the unfortunate Immanuel Kant of the Critiques. Hence, his hysterical, formalist's denial, that the possibility of such wilful discoveries exists, is the centerpiece of Kant's serile life. On this account, Classical art is precious to science, and to morality in general. On this account, the Fifteenth-Century Golden Renaissance's universal scientist and universal Classical artist, Leonardo da Vinci, is exceptionally precious for modern civilization as a whole. Scientist Leonardo's method in the domain of Classical art is of the quality of metaphor, an unnamed, paradoxical meaning, which underlies two or more ironies. All such metaphor, thus, takes the mind beyond the reach of the senses and the sensuous passions, into that same realm of ontological paradox, for which Riemann supplies his original discovery of an approach to mathematically measurable solutions of problems in the domain of Analysis Situs. Consider all Classical art as in opposition to such decadent practices as "Romanticism," "Modernism," etc. In all modern Classical art, such as that of Leonardo, Raphael Sanzio, J. S. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and Brahms, agapem as such is demonstrably the underlying subject-matter; hence, the discernable religious quality of all such Classical art, in opposition to "Romanticism," "Modernity," etc. Once one perceives the riddle of the mural, "The Last Supper," on the far wall of the chamber in Milan's Santa Maria delle Grazie, as implicitly a mirror-image of the room in which one is standing, one finds oneself reflected into the right eye of Jesus Christ. Or, the paradoxical sources of light in Leonardo's "Virgin of the Grotto," or the ontological paradoxical character inherent in the viewing, on site, of Raphael Sanzio's "The School of Athens," or "Transfiguration." We have a foretaste of this, in reflecting upon the revolutionary advance of Classical Greek sculptors, such as Scopus and Praxiteles, over the sterile archaic standard of then-contemporary Egypt: Classical art takes the mind beyond the fallacy of sense-certainty, by means of posing ontological paradoxes, metaphors, which challenge the creativecognitive powers of the individual mind. For a more rouded overview of this same principle of Classical art, consider the form of motivic thorough-composition originated by Wolfgang Mozart. [ 30 ] A composition which satisfies Mozart's method, can be represented in formal-musicological terms, only as a functionally ordered succession of Riemann surfaces. [ 31 ] That is to emphasize, that the performance of the composition must be governed, throughout, in memory's anticipation of the completed pathway to that resolution which appears at the close of the composition. The celebrated conductor Wilhelm Furtwngler referred to the polyphonic tension so evoked in the Classical performer, as "playing between the notes." Thus, it is often said, that after a performance of "arch-Romantic" Richard Wagner's Tristan und Isolde, "There was not a dry seat left in the house"; whereas, in the faithful performance of any major work of Mozart, Beethoven, or Brahms, there should not be a "dry eye left among the audience." The quality of "tears of joy," or agapem, is, in this way, the underlying subject-matter of all great Classical art. [ 32 ] The point to be emphasized, is that this is the same emotion called forth within the individual for the successful attack upon needed principled solutions for ontological paradoxes in scientific work. This same quality, is the proper motivation for all addresses to the problems of principle bearing upon social relations and statecraft. Without agapem, there is no Reason; "Reason" apart from "agapem," is a paralogism, akin to the

mechanist's notion of a living human body without life.[ 33 ] The delusion, that the quality of agapem must exist independently of "Reason," is typical of Aristotelean conceits, which confuse "Reason" with deduction, and science with a hesychastic quality of contemplation which Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver" found among the sages of the floating island of "Laputa." Friedrich Schiller's deep insight into the role of agapem within Reason, is piotal in Wilhelm von Humboldt's educational reforms. Classical humanist education is premised upon the practice of inducing the student to reenact, each within his or her own, sovereign mental processes, valid original discoveries of principle in the domains of science and Classical art. This requires that the curricula be governed by a certain ordering of such rediscovery of principles, according to the criterion, that the principle which the student must rediscover next month, should be the solution to a paradox whose comprehension is made reachable through the principles rediscovered during the present and earlier months. This practice, by invoking the agapic motivation of creative solutions to ontological paradoxes, in this way, was recognized by the Humboldt reforms as providing a form of education whose most common benefit was the development of the moral character of the individual graduate. That development is nothing other than the twofold strengthening of the agapic impulse within the student's life: rendering the agapic motivation more readily accessible, and situating the mastery of crucial tasks of life, including social relations, in reference to that emotion. Communism and agapem Did professedly atheistic Soviet Communists experience agapem as motivation? Obviously, many did. The CEMI report prompts our attention to this by its references to motivation, under the subhead, "Russian Anti-Communism as an Ideology." The corrosive influences of moral decay which post-missile- crisis Soviet society shared in common with the U.S. and western- European cultures of the 1960s through 1980s, produced within the ranks of Party and opposition a quality of existentialism historians associate not only with the 1920s Weimar youth-counterculture Germany of the Nazi ideologue Martin Heidegger and Hermann Hesse's Steppenwolf, but with those waves of radical "conservativism," as described by Dr. Armin Mohler, [ 34 ] out of which the Nazi and related movements were created. Thus,under the geopolitical conditions imposed by Thatcher's Britain and U.S. President Bush, a dionysiac horde of pillagers was unleashed from the rage-filled underside of both the old Soviet Nomenklatura and the morally disoriented portions of the former opposition. That historical parallel is extended to the degree that the chief ideological influence around which the geopolitical pillaging of former Soviet society is organized, is British intelligence's highly ideological Mont Pelerin Society, the agency which transformed an English greengrocer's daughter, into the mean British Nanny, former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. [ 35 ] The Mont Pelerin Society itself, long headed by a recently deceased, Hitler-era radical conservative, Friedrich von Hayek, is an authentic clone of those 1920s and 1930s "radical conservative" strata from which the Nazis and genetically kindred fascist movements were spewed. This same Mont Pelerin Society is the leading coordinating agency among an aggregately powerful array of foundations and related agencies, such as the Heritage Foundation, National Endowment for Democracy, and International Republican Institute, which operate, directly, or indirectly under the control of the British oligarchy's foreign policy and related executive organizations. [ 36 ] The British agent, George Soros, is also typical of the screens behind which the higher level names of the British monarchy operate. The "conservative revolution's" Mont Pelerin Society and its ideology is the leading origin for that stink of nominally "anti- communist" cultural pessimism, against which the authors of the CEMI report complain, with their words: "A simple formula is drummed into the masses: The market economy is based upon private property, and that means it is incompatible with any ideology. And, in general, the market gets along without any ideology, because it is governed by day-to-day interests, not by utopian fantasies about a brilliant future." The authors rightly emphasize the nature of the raud in the babbling "free market" rhetoric: "...the ostentatious ideological nihilism of the ruling elite is a hypocrisy that poorly conceals its adherence to its own ideology." Certainly, "free market" ideology was always a fraud which was concocted by witting scoundrels for the purpose of looting the credulous. The more one degrades market relations in the direction of pure anarchy, the greater the rate of entropy in the economy; the more savagely national boundaries are breached, the more rapidly, extensively, and uncontrollably, the floods of chaos will sweep over the world at large, when the inevitable, onrushing implosion of the present speculative bubble breaks out.

London's oligarchical elite, expects, and even welcomes that foreseeable catastrophe. That oligarchy's game is no longer secret to anyone who matches the actions of British Commonwealth raw- materials asset-grabbers, with the plain-spoken policy uttered within the relevant British Commonwealth press itself. The game is, to liquidate the institution of the modern sovereign nation-state, ending the five-odd centuries of development of the European model of investment in general education and scientific and technological progress of national agro-industrial economy. Amid the ruins of the collapsing national economies, to descend, like vultures, to grab from the mortal remains of dying nations in Central Asia, Africa, and elsewhere, a virtual monopoly over the production and trade in the majority of those food and mineral resources upon which future life on this planet will depend. The demoralization of those of Russia's present "anti- communists" to which the CEMI report refers, points implicitly to the existence of the relative moral superiority of the Soviet system, over that of the Mont Pelerin Society-influenced "anti-communists." The fact that Soviet society was axiomatically anti-religious, sometimes militantly so, must not be understood to suggest that Soviet society did not participate, in its own fashion, in the ecumenical sot of morality which we have outlined here. The four "trump cards" which Soviet society has bequeathed to Russia and the world today, are reflections of nothing different than the power of agapem, as Reason, as we have defined it here, acted through, chiefly, the Soviet commitment to scientific and technological progress. Russians, and relevant others around the world, must not forget that Soviet society, premised largely on accomplishments inherited from earlier Russia, also made its contributions, a legacy which must be brought Phoenix-like, from the ashes of the fallen system. That legacy was relatively good for its time and situation. Now, the system which has ruled western European civilization these past thirty years, tumbles into the same sewer of economic depression and financial collapse, into which the Soviet system was dumped but a few years earlier. All that was good under today's recently fallen, and falling dynasties, was the creation of Reason, as we have defined "Reason" here; like the mortal soul, who entered time as a newborn stranger, and later left us with benefits mankind would otherwise have lacked, the products of agapic Reason are always to be treasured, and salvaged for the benefit of present and future generations. True, some Communists were terrible. They were like the hooligan Maximilian Robespierre, or the British foreign service's agents George Danton and Marat, nothing but dionysiac terrorists, whose devilish religious doctrine was the pure sadism of "Destroy the existing society." Other professed Communists were nation-builders. Also, most professed Soviet Communists were Russians, who made the best of the situation in which they found themselves and their nation, under Soviet rule. The latter spirit is manifest in those members of Russia's Academy of Science, and like-minded other veterans of the departed state-rule, who seek to rebuild a shattered, post-Communist Russia today, with the same loving patriotic devotion to meeting "the test of death" which they expressed as citizens serving under Soviet rule. Thus, as V. I. Lenin might have said, had he lived to experience the present circumstance of the passing of the Soviet system: "Don't throw out the baby with the bath-water." The principled flaw of the Soviet economic system, was certainly not the fact that the development of production was under the rule of a purpose. All of the worthy acts of mankind, in every society, whether in art or science, in production of goods, in law-making, or political- economy, are always the fruit of an intent, a goal. In all creative acts of the individual mind, nothing occurs without foresight, nor without some reasonable approximation of a plan. Without intent, why should anyone attempt to find a principled solution for a paradox? In production, no general improvement in product or process occurs except through a process of planning and related preparations, such as phases of construction, which may require several or more years before the first end-product of that effort is produced. As in Classical musical composition, until the composer has foreseen the outcome of the completed composition, the first notes of that composition can not be selected and defined effectively enough to be performed. The nature of the human mind, is purpose, to arrange the practice in the present to efficiently ensure a foreseeable kind of future result. Without acting in such a manner, that we select our actions in the present, under the control of future goals, there is no science, no agapem, no Reason, and no morality. The central flaw to be addressed The problem of the Soviet system was, on principle, the same pervasive error which dominates virtually every economics teaching provided by virtually every university in the world today. In the Soviet case, the problem was typified by Karl Marx's report, that he had left technological progress out of account in constructing a deterministic image of extended reproduction. This error was not original to Marx; it is the characteristc blunder of every economist whose work Marx studied in the British Museum reading-room, at the direction of the British Foreign Service's David Urquhart. It is the characteristic fundamental folly of virtually every academic economist, and accountant, in the world today. It is the presumption that the

labor of productive operatives is just another commodity, within the linear put- and-take of expenses and income. The essence of economic science, is that it is the unique power of the human species, to increase man's power over nature through development and exercize of the axiomatically anti-linear, agapic power of Reason. It is that activity of the human individual, as operative within and without the point of production, which is the sole source of the productive powers of labor. It is that activity, and no other, which enables mankind to increase the per-capita energy of the system of the whole economic process, while maintaining, or increasing the ratio of the free-energy margin to the energy of the system. This principle is also key to the essential role of the industrial and machine-tool entrepreneur within the model of modern agro-industrial society known as The American System of political-economy. Herein lies the key to a crucial fallacy within the Soviet system. Exemplary of the point, is the case of the ownership of the "strategic" machine-tool firm. [ 37 ] Typically, the ownership is represented by scientists or engineers, or both, who transform the existing array of new and carried-forward principles of nature into new designs of products and processes. This requires a management free to place itself at risk, on the basis of confidence in the scientific and related insights which could be developed only within the sovereign confines of an individual mind. The same principle applies, if somewhat less dramatically, for the case of the entrepreneurial ownership of a modern farm, or other industry, outside the "strategic" machine-tool sector. The same principle cannot be applied to the sae effect for the case of large-scale infrastructural development. The development of infrastructure touches the quality of preparation of entire political areas, beyond the provenance, or immediate concern of privately owned enterprises. The development of national transportation grids, power grids, like the maintenance of national defense, are matters in which decisions must be in conformity with the interest of the nation as an indivisible unity; these are not matters whose policy-shaping can be left to a more or less anarchic aggregation of private ownerships. Similarly, only the nation-state can ensure the quality of education needed for the labor-force as a whole, or can ensure that scientific progress keeps well ahead of the time when its fruits would become profitable, or even indispensable. Only the state can ensure that combined private and public efforts result in an equitable quality of health-care available to all. Without the modern European model of sovereign nation-state economy, humanity would not have risen much above the conditions of life during Europe's Fourteenth Century. Without the sovereign nation- state economy, the conditions of life throughout this planet would now, soon, quickly fall, for generations to come, to Fourteenth-Century levels, or, perhaps much lower. Without the incorporation of the "trump cards" of Russia's revival into the global equation, the possibility of reversing of the recent thirty years devolution in world economy is perhaps existent, but poor. Notes 1.D. Lvov, V. Grebennikov, V. Dementyev, "The Path of Russian Reforms," Working Paper WP96014, Central Economics and Mathematics Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, 1996. [ return to text ] 2."Soothsayer," in William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act I, Scene II. [ return to text ] 3.On the surface of things, each considered in the small: There are two principal differences between the U.S.A. and western Europe during 1927- 1933, and the same regions of the world today: the monstrous reliance o spiralling accumulations of high-priced short-term indebtedness, as a substitute for actual income of both households and corporations, and the mid-1960s "cultural paradigm shift," away from a production-oriented culture, to a "consumerist" ideology. Typical of today's "consumerist" delusions: as early as the late 1970s and early 1980s, typical U.S. citizens, even putatively rational and literate ones, defended their posture of merciless indifference to the bankrupting of U.S. farmers, with the oft-heard utterance: "I don't need the farmers; I get my food at the supermarket." For those of us old enough to remember, first hand, the onset and persistence of "hard times" in the U.S.A., during the 1927-1938 interval, the U.S. population today has been experiencing increasingly severe "hard times," since the 1987-1992 mushrooming of the "derivatives bubble." Most interesting, clinically, is the pervasive, pathological phenomenon of psychological "denial," of the fact, that the worsening "hard times" so far experienced in individual and household life, already echo the similar hardships which persisted during the 1927-1938 period of the "Great Depression." [ return to text ] 4.op. cit., Act III, Scene I

The referenced exchange, in the play, runs as follows: Caesar: The ides of March are come. Soothsayer: Aye, Caesar; but not gone. . [ return to text ] 5.Margaret Thatcher, The Downing Street Years (New York: HarperCollins, 1993), pp. 782-83. [ return to text ] 6.See Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. on the subject of Analysis Situs: "Return to the Machine-Tool Principle," Executive Intelligence Review, Feb. 7, 1997. [ return to text ] 7.FDR-PAC Policy Forum: "Eurasian Land-Bridge: The 'New Silk Road.' " [ return to text ] 8.On 1(b) and 1(c), see Friedrich List, Outlines of American Political Economy, with a commentary by Michael Liebig and an Epilogue by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (Wiesbaden, Germany: Dr. Boettiger Verlag, 1996). See, Nancy Spannaus and Christopher Wite, The Political Economy of the American Revolution, second edition (Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1996), pp. ix-xxv, 1-47, and U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton's relevant policy outlines to the U.S. Congress, pp. 355- 453. [ return to text ] 9.The Eurasian Land-Bridge: The 'New Silk Road'--Locomotive for Worldwide Economic Development, an EIR Special Report (Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, January 1997). [ return to text ] 10.The author adopts the recommendation of some among his associates, that we revive emphasis upon the term "full set economy." In those post-Great Depression definitions of U.S. national security established as policy until approximately 1966-1967, the principle was, that the U.S. economy must contain within its borders the "full set" of those components of infrastructure and production essential to sustain full national economic integrity under conditions analogous to general war or virtual siege. This, as distinct from today's developing sector, and "globalized," degenerate form of today's U.S. economy. Excepting a few cases, such as Argentina during the 1940s into the 1960s, the post-World War II states of Iberia and the developing sector, have never functioned economically with a "full set." [ return to text ] 11.Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "Return to the Machine-Tool Principle," op. cit. [ return to text ] 12.For a summary of the "Productive Triangle" policy set forth by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. in November-December 1989, see: "Europe: the 'Productive Triangle' Must Be Implemented," in The Eurasian Land- Bridge, op. cit., pp. 127-142. [ return to text ] 13.See pp. XXX, below [pp.13-16 of CEMI mss]. [ return to text ] 14.Executive Intelligence Review, Feb. 7, 1997, pp. 15-16. [ return to text ] 15.For example, only illiterate, or semi-literate barbarians will insist that the human species is divided, in any naturally determined, functional sense, according to racial differences. All forms of hman individuals, whatever their otherwise relatively trivial apparent physiological distinctions, have identical cognitive potentials. Within the human species taken as a whole, the only differences of functional significance among persons are those of degree of cognitive and related cultural development of individual persons. The empirical evidence is, that most past cultures of mankind have been cognitively correctly inferior to the best modern culture, but there is no biological determination of cultural superiority, or inferiority among so- called "races." [ return to text ] 16.Perhaps significantly less than one individual for the average ten square kilometers of habitable regions. [ return to text ] 17.See Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "Return to the Machine-Tool Principle," op. cit., on the post-1966 reversal of the modern progress of planetary civilization up to that point. [ return to text ]

18.The author's preference for the use of "unique experiment," rather than the more commonplace, classroom, "crucial experiment," is the need to place in a special class those experiments which define such a newly discovered, valid principle of nature, as leads to the discovery and validation of a new general hypothesis governing all physical space-time theorems, replacing the previously reigning hypothesis, the which had been rendered paradoxical by the kind of evidence which uniquely requires the overturning of that earlier hypothesis. For example, the Seventeenth-Century experimental evidence, leading through the discovery of isochronicity in the gravitational field, by Huyghens, through the determination, by the combined work of Huyghens, Roemer, Leibniz, and Bernouilli, of cohering isochronicity in the domain of that refraction of light determined by apparently constant rates of retarded propagation of light. The term "unique experiment" is introduced in this location, because of its significance in defining a functional notion of scientific and technological progress's role in increase of the productive powers of labor. [ return to text ] 19.The fact that the U.S. Declaration of Independence rejects John Locke's principle of "life, liberty, and property," and adopts Leibniz's term of rebuke against Locke, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," instead, should be coupled with the Leibnizian language of U.S. fundamental law, that of the Preamble of the Federal Constitution, and the explicitly Leibnizian economic policy of President George Washington's administration, as reflecting the fact that the crafters of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were, unlike scribe Thomas Jefferson, followers of Leibniz. The concepts of "pursuit of happiness," and "general welfare," are already developed conceptually in Leibniz's first writing on economy, his 1671 Society and Economy (e.g., John Chambless, trans., Fidelio, Fall 1992). [ return to text ] 20.op. cit. p. 21, Figure 3: "How the Machine-Tool Principle is situated." [ return to text ] 21.As distinguished, as by Bernhard Riemann's 1854 habilitation dissertation, from a formalist mathematical physics. Bernhard Riemann, ber die Hypothesen, welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen, Bernhard Riemanns Gesammelte Mathematische Werke, H. Weber ed., second edition (New York: Dover Publications, 1953) pp. 272-287. [ return to text ] 22.i.e., linear even in the very small. [ return to text ] 23.Riemann, op. cit. pp. 272-273. For an elaboration of the present writer's views on the same subject-matter, see his "The Essential Role of 'Time Reversal' in Mathematical Economics," Executive Intelligence Review, Oct. 11, 1996. [ return to text ] 24.Friedrich Schiller descibed such "learned gossips" with an appropriate term of contempt, as the Brotgelehrten. Francisco Goya cartooned such scholars as asses being taught by asses. In good classrooms, the important questions in any examination, involve matters for which the solution, or the procedure for its derivation have not been supplied in textbooks or earlier clasroom instruction; rather, what should be tested, is the student's developed capacities for solving new classes of problems at the outer boundaries of the education explicitly supplied. [ return to text ] 25.See "Studies in a Geometry of Situation," Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Philosophical Papers and Letters, Leroy E. Loemaker, ed. (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989); pp. 248- 258. The Leibniz writings published posthumously under the title ofMonadology, must be recognized as elaborating an Analysis Situs. [ return to text ] 26.Permutations, not merely combinations, since the order in which the relations are represented, is functionally crucial. [ return to text ] 27.Hence, not subject to a generally accepted classroom mathematics. Hence, after the combined work of Gauss and Riemann, the Euler-Lagrange presumptions respecting formal analysis of mathematical functions, are superseded by the principle, that every valid mathematics is generated, and supplied proof, from the standpoint of validated revolutionary advances of principle in experimental science, not the other way around. Gauss's Platonic approach to developing higher mathematics, establishes the method to which experimental science must turn, to devise appropriate new forms of mathematics as discoveries of principle require this. [ return to text ]

28.e.g., an echo of the ontological paradox of "One" and "Many," the which is the subject of Plato's Parmenides. [ return to text ] 29."test of death" = Latin "...in mortis examine." Compare musician Mindy Pechenuk's presentation of the Analysis Situs of Wolfgang Mozart's "Ave Verum Corpus" motet (K. 618) to the September 1996 Reston, Virginia conference of the Schiller Institute. Fidelio, Winter 1996. [ return to text ] 30.See, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "Mozart's 1782-1786 Revolution in Music," Fidelio, Winter 1992, and, "The Essential Role of ?Time Reversal' in Mathematical Economics," loc. cit. Although Mozart's discovered pinciple is historically rooted, entirely, in his original solution to an implication of J. S. Bach's A Musical Offering, Maestro Norbert Brainin has discovered decades past, a most compelling case for the still too-little known proposition, that Haydn's student, Mozart, was put onto the track of such new principles of composition, by Haydn's own discovery of Motivfhrung, as employed in Hadyn's Opus 33 "Russian Quartets." [ return to text ] 31.See Mindy Pechenuk, op. cit. See also, the author's referenced paper on the subject of "time-reversal" in mathematical economics. [ return to text ] 32.Thus, the canonically religious quality intrinsic to the Mozart Requiem, and Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, in contrast to the sensualist, irrationalist "Romanticism" of Hector Berlioz's blaring Requiem. [ return to text ] 33.E.g., the Benjamin-Franklin-hating British Benthamite, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, with her political anti-science tract, Frankenstein. [ return to text ] 34.Armin Mohler, Die Konservative Revolution in Deutschland, 1918-1932, second ed. (Darmstadt: 1972). [ return to text ] 35.It is notable, that highly placed British insiders recognize Friedrich von Hayek's reprogrammed Thatcher as a caricature of the Labour Party's late Bessie Braddock. [ return to text ] 36.These British Commonwealth organizations, which are the immediate "constituency" of the British monarchy and Privy Council, are known generically by the title "Club of the Isles," and are typified by the institution behind the 1961-founded World Wildlife Fund, the self-styled "1001 Club." [ return to text ] 37.Lothar Komp, "The Era of Deindustrialization Has Now Reached Its Dead End," Executive Intelligence Review, Feb. 7, 1997. [ return to text ] - 30 Site Map For Connections to All Locations